This piece summarises published research on ageing and emotional well-being. We are not psychologists or clinicians, and nothing here is psychological advice. If you’re struggling with mood, isolation, or a life-stage transition of the kind discussed, a licensed psychologist or your GP is the right place to start.

“When we recognize that we don’t have all the time in the world, we see our priorities most clearly. We take less notice of trivial matters.” That is Laura Carstensen, a Stanford psychologist, describing the shift her research traces in how people spend their attention as they age.

And it is probably not the story most of us expect ageing to tell.

The assumption that age means shrinking

The familiar picture of growing older is one of contraction. The social circle thins. Ambition cools. The appetite for new people, new places and new experiences fades, and what remains looks like a managed decline.

Read that way, an older person with fewer friends and narrower routines is a person who has lost something and is making do with the remainder.

That reading treats the narrowing almost as damage. Carstensen’s work, developed through her socioemotional selectivity theory, points somewhere stranger. The narrowing is real, but it is largely chosen rather than imposed.

What Carstensen found

The shift she documents is selective rather than passive. Older adults do not simply lose contacts; they prune the peripheral ones and hold onto the people who matter most. They put less effort into meeting new people and more into the relationships they already have. When time feels limited, the theory holds, people are motivated to pursue emotional satisfaction over information.

That motivation shows up as a particular set of preferences. Carstensen describes older adults as “more likely to invest in sure things, deepen existing relationships, and savor life.” The hedge in her own phrasing matters. This is a tendency the research finds, not a rule every person follows.

One detail makes the pattern hard to dismiss as mere mellowing. In a memory study, Carstensen found that older adults remembered nearly twice as many positive images as negative or neutral ones — a skew toward the good that younger adults did not show. Attention itself appears to reorganise around what feels emotionally worth keeping.

Time horizon, not age, likely does the work

The central claim is that age is not really the cause. One key tenet of the theory, in Carstensen’s words, is that “perceived time horizons, not chronological age, account for age differences in goals and preferences.” What changes behaviour is the sense of how much time remains, and that sense usually shortens with age, though not always for the same reasons.

The contrast with youth is the cleanest test. When time horizons are long, Carstensen says, “people are constantly preparing, trying to soak up all the information they can.” This makes sense when you are building toward an open future, and tends to lose its appeal once the future feels finite.

Carstensen and colleagues found that shortening or expanding a person’s sense of remaining time changed their goal preferences regardless of how old they were. A similar effect surfaced again under unusual conditions: an analysis published in Psychological Science found that the age advantage in emotional well-being held up during the early COVID-19 pandemic, with older adults reporting better emotional experience than younger ones even under a shared acute threat.

The paradox of ageing

If ageing were simply loss, emotional life should worsen with it. Instead, research suggests the opposite.

Her explanation for the paradox is plain. She describes the sequence this way: “we invest in more emotionally important parts of life and life gets better.” It tends to get better, in her reading, because the investment has shifted to the things that reliably pay off in contentment.

What this reframes

Seen through Carstensen’s lens, the older person with a smaller circle and quieter ambitions is not a diminished version of their younger self. They are perhaps simply someone acting on a clearer sense of what their time is for. The same behaviour that looks like withdrawal from the outside can be, from the inside, a deliberate reallocation toward what already matters.

The practical reach of the idea extends well beyond ageing. Because perceived time, not the calendar, sets the priorities, anyone whose horizon suddenly shortens — through illness, upheaval, or simply paying attention to the clock — can find the same reordering arriving early. Later life is simply where it shows up most reliably.

The post Psychologist Laura Carstensen uncovered a surprising upside to growing older: as our sense of the time we have left grows shorter, we invest more in the people and activities that matter most to us appeared first on Space Daily.

Worrying about getting old, it turns out, may not be a neutral psychological activity. In November 2025, Mariana Rodrigues, a PhD student at the NYU School of Global Public Health, and colleagues published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Psychoneuroendocrinology analysing data from 726 adult women across the United States. The participants had completed standardised questionnaires assessing their anxiety about aging — broken into three specific dimensions: fears about declining health, fears about losing physical attractiveness, and fears about reproductive aging. They had also provided blood samples that the research team analysed using two of the most rigorous biological-age measurement tools currently available: DunedinPACE, which measures the current speed at which the body is aging, and GrimAge2, which estimates cumulative biological damage accumulated over a lifetime. The findings, presented as a cross-sectional snapshot rather than a clinical intervention, suggested that subjective fears about getting older may indeed have measurable effects on the underlying biology of aging itself.

According to the NYU School of Global Public Health’s press release on the study, the researchers found that women with higher aging anxiety showed accelerated epigenetic aging on the DunedinPACE clock — meaning their cells were aging measurably faster than would be expected for their chronological age. The effect was specific. Among the three dimensions of aging anxiety the team examined, only one was strongly associated with the biological-age acceleration: fears about declining health. Anxieties about appearance and fertility did not show a comparable association with the epigenetic clocks. The implication, in the researchers’ framing, is that not all aging fears are biologically equivalent. The specific worry that one’s body will fail in the future appears to be the one that does the most to accelerate the failure itself.

How the cellular measurement works

The two epigenetic clocks the NYU team used represent the current state of the art in biological-age measurement. Per PsyPost’s detailed coverage of the study’s methodology, DunedinPACE functions like a speedometer for cellular aging — it measures the rate at which the body is currently aging at the moment the blood sample was taken, expressed as a multiplier of normal aging (a DunedinPACE score of 1.0 indicates normal pace; higher values indicate faster aging). GrimAge2 functions differently, estimating cumulative biological damage accumulated across a lifetime, and has been validated as a strong predictor of mortality risk. Both clocks measure DNA methylation patterns — chemical modifications to the DNA that accumulate over time and that reflect, with substantial precision, the underlying biological state of the cells producing them.

The participants who scored higher on the aging-anxiety scale, particularly on the health-related dimension, showed faster DunedinPACE scores than participants with lower anxiety. The magnitude of the effect, while present, was modest in absolute terms — these are statistical patterns across hundreds of women, not dramatic personal accelerations visible to the individual. But the direction was consistent, the methodology was rigorous, and the use of two independent epigenetic clocks rather than one strengthened the basic finding. Rodrigues, in her summary of the work, described the implication directly: “Our research suggests that subjective experiences may be driving objective measures of aging. Aging-related anxiety is not merely a psychological concern, but may leave a mark on the body with real health consequences.”

Why women specifically

The study examined only women, and the researchers were explicit about why this population was chosen. As reported in the Sentinel Assam coverage of the NYU work, women may be especially vulnerable to aging anxiety because of the specific configuration of social expectations they navigate. Cultural pressures around youth and physical appearance, professional consequences of perceived aging, the timing of reproductive decisions, and midlife caregiving roles that often involve simultaneously watching one’s own parents age and become sick all combine to produce a particular intensity of aging-related psychological stress in women across the lifespan. Rodrigues noted in her commentary on the findings: “Women in midlife may also be juggling multiple roles, including caring for their ageing parents. As they see older family members grow older and become sick, they may worry about whether the same thing will happen to them.”

The decision to study women only also reflects a broader pattern in the aging-and-anxiety literature, where men and women appear to experience and process aging-related fears differently. Whether the basic finding — that fears about future health predict faster cellular aging — generalises to men, and whether the magnitude of the effect is similar across sexes, are questions that the present study cannot answer and that the research group identifies as priority topics for subsequent investigation.

What the study does not establish

The Rodrigues et al. 2025 paper is a cross-sectional observational study, not a randomised intervention. The researchers were careful to acknowledge several limitations that warrant honest framing. The most important is that the study captures a single point in time, which means it cannot determine the direction of causation. It is possible that aging anxiety accelerates cellular aging, as the popular framing of the finding suggests. It is also possible that women whose cells are already aging faster — for reasons unrelated to their anxiety — develop more aging-related health concerns as a result of subtle bodily changes they may not consciously recognise. Both directions are biologically plausible, and a single time-point study cannot distinguish between them. Longitudinal research that follows the same individuals across years and decades will be required to establish causation.

A second important limitation involves behavioural mediators. As reported in ScienceDaily’s coverage of the paper, when the research team adjusted their analysis to account for anxiety-related coping behaviours — particularly smoking and alcohol use — the association between aging anxiety and accelerated epigenetic aging weakened and lost statistical significance. This is a real finding that complicates the simple “fear ages you directly” narrative. It suggests that part of the biological effect of aging anxiety may be mediated through the behaviours people adopt to cope with the anxiety, rather than through a direct neuropsychological pathway. Women who worry intensely about declining health may smoke or drink more as a way of managing the anxiety, and those behaviours may then accelerate cellular aging through well-established mechanisms. The aging anxiety, in this account, is still consequential — but its consequence runs partly through behavioural channels that are themselves more directly addressable than the underlying psychological state.

Where this fits in the broader literature

The NYU finding does not stand alone. The Yale psychologist Becca Levy has been publishing on closely related territory for more than two decades, beginning with a 2002 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showing that older adults with positive age stereotypes — those who viewed aging as a generally positive process rather than a feared decline — lived approximately 7.5 years longer on average than those with negative age stereotypes, after controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, loneliness, and functional health. Subsequent work in the Levy research programme has documented similar patterns across cardiovascular outcomes, dementia risk, recovery from disability, and a long list of other health indicators. The Rodrigues 2025 paper extends this body of work into the specific domain of epigenetic biological-age measurement, providing the first peer-reviewed evidence that the connection between aging-related psychological orientation and biological aging shows up directly in the molecular clocks researchers can now measure in blood.

What this means for ordinary readers is that the way a person thinks about aging may matter more than it has traditionally been treated as mattering. The implication is not that anyone can simply will themselves to age more slowly by adopting positive thoughts about getting older — the relationship is more complex than that, and the behavioural mediators identified in the NYU study suggest that the practical pathway runs partly through the daily habits that anxiety drives rather than through pure cognitive reframing. But the underlying observation — that subjective fears about the future are now measurable in the cells of the body that holds those fears — represents a substantive shift in how the boundary between psychology and biology can be understood. The mind-body connection, in the specific domain of aging, is no longer a metaphor. It is something that can be quantified in DNA methylation patterns, in a blood sample, in a laboratory in New York.

The post A 2025 NYU study found that women who actively worry about aging — particularly those who fear future health problems — measurably age faster at the cellular level than those who do not, in a quiet finding that suggests how a person thinks about getting older may itself be a biological intervention appeared first on Space Daily.

If you are currently in your mid-forties and feeling somewhat worse about your life than you remember feeling in your twenties, the data suggest you are not alone, you are not broken, and the curve you are on bends back upward. The basic finding is one of the more robust patterns in the empirical economics of well-being. In a long series of papers running from approximately 2004 through 2025, the economists David Blanchflower of Dartmouth College and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick have analysed survey data on life satisfaction and happiness from millions of individuals across more than 130 countries. The pattern that has consistently emerged is a U-shape — high in youth, declining through early and middle adulthood, reaching a minimum somewhere in the late forties, and then rising again through the late fifties, sixties, and into the seventies. The same shape appears, with minor variations, in advanced economies, developing economies, individual US states, every European country examined, and the great majority of Latin American, African, and Asian countries surveyed.

The most comprehensive single statement of the finding came in 2020, when Blanchflower published a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper analysing life-satisfaction data from 132 countries. Averaging across the country-level estimates, he found the age minimum of well-being at 47.2 years in advanced countries and 48.2 years in developing countries — strikingly similar figures across radically different economic and cultural contexts. “The happiness curve is everywhere,” he concluded. A 2021 follow-up in the Journal of Population Economics extended the analysis to 145 countries and confirmed the same essential pattern, with the U-shape robust to statistical controls for income, education, marital status, and employment.

What the data actually show

The shape of the curve, examined country by country, is not identical everywhere. In some countries the dip is sharper; in others it is more gradual. The recovery phase varies in steepness. The absolute level of happiness at any given age varies enormously across countries — Scandinavian populations report substantially higher life satisfaction at all ages than populations in many lower-income or politically unstable countries. But the basic temporal pattern — that any given country’s well-being levels are lower in midlife than in either young adulthood or old age — replicates across an extraordinary range of national contexts. As reported in the University of Warwick’s press coverage of the original 2008 Blanchflower-Oswald paper, the researchers found the same U-shape in happiness levels and life satisfaction across 72 countries in their initial dataset, including economies as different as Norway, China, Iraq, and Argentina. The pattern is not specific to wealthy industrial democracies or to any particular cultural tradition. It appears to be a feature of being human across the adult lifespan, regardless of where the human in question happens to live.

For people inside the dip, the data carries a specific implication. The years between approximately 40 and 55 are, on average across the surveyed populations, the lowest-satisfaction years of adult life. The recovery is not automatic and not guaranteed for any individual — these are statistical averages across enormous populations, and any given person can defy the curve in either direction. But the general trajectory means that the experience of feeling that life has somehow narrowed or dimmed in midlife is, by the available data, the modal experience for adults in this age range, not a personal failure or a sign that something has specifically gone wrong. The corollary is that the late sixties and seventies, contrary to widely-held assumptions about ageing as a steady downhill, are typically reported by the people living through them as among the higher-satisfaction periods of adult life.

Why the curve might exist

The mechanisms behind the U-shape are not fully settled, and several competing explanations are now under active research. One leading hypothesis comes from the socioemotional selectivity theory developed by the Stanford psychologist Laura Carstensen, which proposes that as people perceive their remaining time as shorter, they progressively prioritise emotionally meaningful experiences over information-seeking or status-seeking ones. Older adults, in this account, are happier in part because they have become better at selecting the activities, relationships, and goals that actually produce contentment, and at letting go of the ones that do not. A second hypothesis emphasises expectation adjustment — by the late forties, most adults have learned what their lives will and will not deliver, and the gap between what they hoped for and what they have can produce acute disappointment; by the late sixties, that gap has often been reconciled. A third hypothesis emphasises the practical reduction of midlife stressors — the children grown, the career trajectory settled, the financial pressure typically eased — which simply removes some of the load that was depressing midlife well-being.

Per a 2022 review and replication of the U-curve in Frontiers in Psychology, neurobiological mechanisms may also play a role. Midlife is the period when adults typically carry the heaviest combination of work, financial, caregiving, and intergenerational responsibilities — the “sandwich generation” effect of being responsible for both children and ageing parents simultaneously. The cumulative allostatic load of chronic stress can suppress subjective well-being for years at a time. As these responsibilities reduce in late life, the stress load reduces, and the underlying capacity for satisfaction reasserts itself.

What the framework does not claim

Intellectual honesty requires noting that the U-curve finding has been actively contested within happiness economics over the past two decades, and the methodological debate remains unresolved on several points. Some critics — notably Paul Frijters and Tony Beatton in 2012, and Sonja Kassenboehmer and John Haisken-DeNew in 2013 — have argued that the U-shape appears in cross-sectional data but weakens substantially or disappears in longitudinal data that follows the same individuals across their lives. Others have suggested that the U-shape may be partly an artifact of cohort effects (different generations having different baseline happiness levels) rather than a pure age effect. The Princeton economist Angus Deaton has argued that the U-shape may depend on specific socioeconomic conditions and may not be as universal as the Blanchflower-Oswald papers suggest.

The Blanchflower group has responded to these critiques with subsequent analyses that they argue confirm the basic pattern across multiple datasets and methodological approaches. The debate continues. What is largely uncontested is that the well-being of younger adults (ages 18-25), particularly young women, has declined substantially in many developed countries since approximately 2014, in ways that complicate the traditional U-curve picture for the most recent cohorts. As documented by the Global Interdependence Center in a 2025 review of the global U-shape literature, the youth-end of the curve has flattened or reversed in some recent samples — meaning that for some current young adults, the typical pattern of starting high and dipping into midlife may not apply to them in the way it did to earlier generations. The midlife dip and the late-life recovery, however, continue to show up consistently in the older portions of the data.

Why the curve is invisible while you are on it

The most disconcerting feature of the U-curve, for people currently inside the dip, is that it tends to be undetectable as a temporary pattern from within. Someone in the middle of midlife dissatisfaction typically experiences the dissatisfaction not as one particular point on a long curve but as the new permanent reality of being themselves. The retrospective view from the seventies — that the forties were, statistically speaking, the lowest-satisfaction years of an otherwise broadly improving life — is not available to the person in their forties, who has no way to see the forthcoming recovery. The curve appears in the aggregate data because researchers can examine millions of lives at different ages simultaneously. Each individual life sees only the slice it is currently in. The empirical contribution of the Blanchflower-Oswald research programme, whatever the eventual outcome of the methodological debates around it, has been to make the broader shape visible at all — to point out, on the basis of survey data from hundreds of millions of human beings, that the dip is a feature rather than a final destination, and that the curve generally bends upward again on the other side.

The post Across more than 100 countries, researchers have documented a “U-curve” of human happiness — life satisfaction reliably dips through middle age before rising again in late life — and the happiness people report in their late 60s and 70s is often greater than what they felt in their 30s, in a quiet curve almost nobody expects to be on while they are inside the dip appeared first on Space Daily.

If you have ever lain awake at 3 a.m. running through a conversation you cannot rewrite, a decision someone else has already made, or a future event you cannot guarantee, you have arrived at the specific psychological territory that a former Roman slave named Epictetus mapped out approximately 1,900 years before you got there. Epictetus, who lived from roughly 50 to 135 CE, did not write anything down. His teachings were recorded by his student Arrian, who transcribed his lectures and later compiled the most essential ones into a short handbook called the Enchiridion. The handbook, approximately 53 short chapters long, opens with what is probably the single most consequential sentence in the entire Stoic tradition. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Epictetus, the line begins: “Of things that exist, some are in our power and some are not in our power. Those that are in our power are conception, choice, desire, aversion, and in a word, those things that are our own doing. Those that are not under our control are the body, property or possessions, reputation, positions of authority, and in a word, such things that are not our own doing.”

What Epictetus then argued is that almost all human suffering arises from a single, repeated, correctable error: confusing the first category with the second. We try to control things that belong in the not-in-our-power column — other people’s opinions of us, the behaviour of relatives, the outcome of negotiations, the weather, the economy, the past, the future, our own bodies and lifespans — and we neglect the small, genuinely controllable category, which consists of our own judgements, intentions, and responses. The result is chronic frustration about things we were never going to be able to change, accompanied by chronic neglect of the things we actually could change. The Stoic prescription, articulated in chapter 1 of the Enchiridion and elaborated across the much longer Discourses, is to perform this sorting deliberately and continuously, until it becomes second nature.

The dichotomy in practice

The classical Stoic exercises around what modern Stoic-revival writers have called the “dichotomy of control” were not abstract philosophical contemplations. They were daily practices, intended to be performed in the morning before the rest of the day’s events began, and reviewed in the evening after the day was over. The morning practice involved anticipating the day’s likely difficulties — encounters with rude or dishonest people, unexpected setbacks, frustrations of various kinds — and pre-sorting them into the two categories. The encounter with the rude colleague would happen or not happen; that was not in our control. Our response to it was. The traffic on the road would be heavy or light; that was not in our control. Our patience inside that traffic was. The clients we hoped to sign would sign or not sign; that was not in our control. Our preparation, our presentation, and our equanimity in the meeting were.

The same logic applied to the bigger questions of a life. Whether one’s children turn out as one hopes, whether one is loved by the people one loves, whether one’s career succeeds, whether one stays healthy, whether one lives to be old — Epictetus would have placed all of these squarely in the not-in-our-power column. The only things in our power, in his strict reading, are our own judgements and responses. As the modern Stoic writer Donald Robertson summarises the framework, drawing on Epictetus’s own emphasis: maintaining the distinction between what is up to us and what is not is the foundational practice from which all other Stoic exercises follow. Per Philosophy Break’s reference on the dichotomy of control as a Stoic device for a tranquil mind, the point of the practice was not resignation but reallocation of attention — moving one’s effort away from the controllable shape of the world and toward the controllable shape of one’s own response to whatever world arrives.

The route from Greece to the modern clinic

The connection between Epictetus’s teaching and modern cognitive behavioural therapy is not a strained academic parallel. It is direct, documented, and explicitly acknowledged by the founders of the therapeutic tradition themselves. As reported in a 2023 review in Neurological Sciences on the Western origins of mindfulness therapy in ancient Rome, Albert Ellis, the founder of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy in 1955, explicitly credited Epictetus as the primary philosophical influence on his approach. Ellis quoted the famous line from chapter 5 of the Enchiridion — “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them” — in his foundational 1955 paper introducing the new therapeutic method, and reproduced it in numerous subsequent publications. Aaron Beck, who developed Cognitive Therapy in the 1960s (the broader framework that came to be called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy when combined with behavioural techniques), wrote in his original treatment manual for depression that “the philosophical origins of cognitive therapy can be traced back to the Stoic philosophers, particularly Epictetus.”

The structural parallels are precise. Ellis’s foundational ABC model — Activating event, Belief about the event, Consequence (emotional or behavioural) — maps almost exactly onto Epictetus’s distinction between events themselves and our judgements about events. The CBT technique of “cognitive restructuring,” which involves identifying automatic negative thoughts and examining whether they accurately reflect reality, is structurally identical to the Stoic exercise of examining one’s judgements about external events. The CBT concept of “locus of control” — directing attention toward what one can influence rather than what one cannot — is the dichotomy of control restated in the language of mid-twentieth-century psychology. Even the third-wave therapies like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), which add components of mindfulness and acceptance, draw on Stoic exercises that Ellis and Beck had originally underemphasised. The Serenity Prayer, written by Reinhold Niebuhr in 1932 — “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference” — is the dichotomy of control rendered in twentieth-century devotional language.

What the evidence base now shows

The descendant of Epictetus’s teaching is now, by a substantial margin, the most empirically supported form of psychotherapy in modern medicine. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy has been tested in literally thousands of randomised controlled trials across the past five decades, covering depression, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, insomnia, chronic pain, and a long list of other conditions. The aggregate effect sizes from meta-analyses are typically in the moderate to large range, with Cohen’s d values between approximately 0.5 and 1.0 depending on the condition and the specific protocol. CBT is the first-line recommended treatment for several major mental-health conditions in clinical guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and equivalent bodies across most developed countries.

As documented in the Robertson and Codd 2019 paper in The Behavior Therapist, the central therapeutic insight that runs through this entire empirical edifice — that emotional disturbance is mediated by judgements about events rather than by the events themselves, and that the path to reduced disturbance runs through revising the judgements rather than changing the events — is, in essentially its original form, what Epictetus was teaching his students in Nicopolis in the late first and early second centuries CE. The mechanism is the same. The vocabulary has changed. The clinical context has changed. The empirical infrastructure has changed beyond anything anyone in ancient Rome could have imagined. But the basic move at the heart of the intervention — sorting the things that are up to us from the things that are not, and reallocating attention accordingly — is recognisably the same move that opens chapter 1 of the Enchiridion.

What the framework asks

The practical implication for an ordinary person not currently in therapy is not that they should adopt the entire apparatus of clinical CBT. It is that the basic distinction Epictetus drew is available to anyone, costs nothing, and has been validated by approximately seventy years of clinical research and approximately two thousand years of philosophical practice. The exercise itself is straightforward. Whatever is currently troubling you — the conversation, the decision, the rejection, the diagnosis, the news, the relative, the political situation, the future you cannot guarantee — has two components. Some part of it is genuinely within your power to change. Some part of it is not. Sorting the two takes a few minutes of honest attention. Most of the suffering, in Epictetus’s account, comes from skipping that step. Most of the relief, in the modern CBT literature, comes from doing it.

The post The Stoic philosopher Epictetus taught that almost all human suffering comes from confusing the things we can control with the things we cannot — and the simple practice he proposed, of separating those two categories every morning before anything else, has quietly become the foundation of modern cognitive behavioral therapy nearly two thousand years later appeared first on Space Daily.

The question of whether having a reason to get out of bed in the morning affects how long you live turns out to be answerable, and the answer is yes by an unexpectedly large margin. In 2022, Eric S. Kim — formerly at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and now at the University of British Columbia — published an outcome-wide analysis of the Health and Retirement Study, a long-running nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50 and older, together with collaborators including Koichiro Shiba, Laura Kubzansky, David Williams, and Tyler VanderWeele. The dataset contained detailed measurements of more than 13,000 participants’ sense of purpose in life, alongside tracking of their mortality outcomes over the subsequent four to eight years. The headline finding was striking. Participants in the highest purpose-in-life category at baseline went on to die at approximately 46 percent the rate of participants in the lowest purpose-in-life category over the four years that followed. In a separate analysis from the same research group, eight-year mortality data showed that the lowest-purpose group had a 36.5 percent mortality rate while the highest-purpose group had a 15.2 percent mortality rate. The gap was not subtle.

Per a Psychology Today review of the Kim 2022 findings, the magnitude of the protective effect compares favourably to the most-established modifiable risk factors in preventive medicine. The Psychology Today framing characterises the purpose effect as roughly 1.8 times as effective as not smoking or engaging in physical activity, though precise head-to-head comparisons are difficult to derive from the primary literature, and the multiplier is best understood as an approximate framing rather than a precise relative-risk calculation. What is well-supported, across multiple independent analyses, is that the purpose-mortality association is in the same broad range of effect sizes as the most-studied behavioural risk factors — large enough that, if purpose in life were a drug or a dietary intervention, it would likely already be the subject of widespread clinical guidelines. The finding is not new in isolation — earlier work by Patrick Hill and Nicholas Turiano in 2014, by Alyssa Alimujiang and colleagues in 2019, and by various other researchers had pointed in the same direction. The 2022 Kim analysis is notable for the rigour of its methodology, the size of the dataset, and the strength of the effect.

What “purpose in life” actually means

The construct measured in these studies is not a vague spiritual notion. It is a specific psychological dimension that researchers have been studying for more than three decades, derived from the Ryff Psychological Well-being Scales developed by Carol Ryff at the University of Wisconsin in 1989. The “purpose in life” subscale asks participants to rate their agreement with statements such as “I have a sense of direction and purpose in my life,” “I am an active person in carrying out the plans I set for myself,” “Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them,” and “I sometimes feel as if I’ve done all there is to do in life” (reverse-scored). The scale is short, well-validated, and produces a continuous numerical score that researchers can correlate with health and mortality outcomes.

What the scale captures, in practice, is the degree to which a person experiences their life as having a coherent direction — a sense that what they are doing matters, that they have goals worth pursuing, that their existence connects to something larger than the immediate present. People who score high on the scale are not necessarily religious, not necessarily wealthy, not necessarily highly educated. They are characterised, across multiple studies, by a specific cognitive-emotional orientation toward their own life: they know what they are trying to do, they believe it is worth doing, and they are actively pursuing it. The orientation is not the same as happiness, not the same as life satisfaction, and not the same as optimism — although all of these correlate with purpose to varying degrees. Purpose, in the Ryff framework, is the directional component of well-being. It is about the trajectory, not the current emotional state.

The mechanisms

The biological pathways by which a psychological construct like purpose in life produces measurable reductions in mortality risk have been the subject of substantial research over the past decade, and the current understanding involves several converging mechanisms. As reported in the Boston University School of Public Health summary of the Shiba and Kim 2022 work, the first mechanism is behavioural. People with a strong sense of purpose are more likely to engage in protective health behaviours — physical activity, preventive medical care, regular sleep, healthier eating — and less likely to engage in risk behaviours such as smoking, heavy drinking, and substance use. The Kim research group has documented these specific patterns in detail: people with the highest purpose scores are approximately 24 percent less likely to become physically inactive, 33 percent less likely to develop sleep problems, and 22 percent less likely to develop an unhealthy body mass index over multi-year follow-up periods.

The second mechanism is physiological. Chronic stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, elevating cortisol and inflammatory cytokines that accelerate cardiovascular aging, contribute to insulin resistance, and impair immune function. A strong sense of purpose appears to buffer against chronic stress, reducing the day-to-day cortisol and inflammatory load that purposeless or aimless individuals carry over decades. Independent studies have documented lower levels of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein — both established biomarkers of systemic inflammation — in adults with higher purpose scores. The third mechanism is cognitive: purposeful people tend to maintain higher levels of cognitive engagement throughout adulthood, which is independently associated with reduced risk of dementia and other neurodegenerative conditions. The fourth is social: purpose tends to be sustained through social connection, and social connection is itself one of the strongest independent predictors of longevity.

What the framework does not establish

The 2022 Kim findings are correlational rather than experimental, and intellectual honesty requires noting what this means. The studies cannot conclusively prove that purpose in life causes reduced mortality. It remains possible that some third factor — better baseline health, higher socioeconomic status, more supportive family relationships, more accessible healthcare — drives both higher purpose scores and lower mortality, with no direct causal connection between them. Per the original peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Health Promotion by Kim and colleagues in 2022, the researchers controlled for an extensive set of demographic, health-behaviour, and psychological covariates, and the effect remained robust across those controls — with E-value sensitivity analyses indicating that an unmeasured confounder would need to be associated with both purpose and mortality at risk ratios of approximately 3.13 to fully explain away the observed association. That is a substantially higher bar than most plausible unmeasured factors could clear, which substantially strengthens the causal interpretation. But causation in observational epidemiology can never be definitively established without randomised intervention trials, and those trials are inherently difficult to conduct for a construct like purpose in life, which is hard to manipulate experimentally in the way that diet or exercise can be.

The findings also do not, by themselves, tell anyone how to acquire a stronger sense of purpose if they feel they currently lack one. The research literature documents that purpose in life is associated with reduced mortality. It does not provide a recipe for how an adult who has been drifting for several decades can deliberately construct a sense of purpose where none currently exists. Some intervention research is now underway on this question — purpose-focused therapies, structured volunteer programmes, narrative-identity interventions — but the evidence base for these interventions remains substantially thinner than the evidence base for the underlying purpose-mortality association itself.

Where this fits in the longevity literature

The 2022 Kim et al. analysis sits within a broader emerging picture in which psychological and social factors turn out to be among the most powerful predictors of physical-health outcomes in older adults. The Harvard Study of Adult Development, running since 1938, has documented across more than eight decades that quality of close relationships predicts late-life health more strongly than any single biological measurement. The Roseto study of the 1960s found that a tightly-bonded Italian-American community in Pennsylvania had cardiovascular mortality rates roughly half of comparable populations, despite eating, smoking, and exercising in ways that conventional risk factors would have predicted to be harmful. The MIDUS longitudinal data have documented similar patterns for sense of mission, optimism, social engagement, and several other psychological dimensions. The purpose-mortality association specifically has been independently replicated outside the Kim research program — most prominently by Aliya Alimujiang and colleagues at the University of Michigan in a 2019 paper in JAMA Network Open, which analysed approximately 7,000 US adults aged over 50 and found that those with the lowest purpose scores had more than twice the mortality risk of those with the highest scores, even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, health behaviours, and baseline health status.

What the Kim 2022 finding adds to this longer-running picture is methodological rigour and effect-size clarity. The 46 percent mortality reduction figure is one of the cleanest single numbers in the modern psychological-epidemiology literature. The comparison to smoking and physical activity — the two most-studied modifiable risk factors in all of preventive medicine — is striking precisely because purpose in life is not currently treated by clinical medicine as a risk factor at all. Doctors ask patients whether they smoke. They ask whether they exercise. They do not, as a rule, ask whether the person sitting across from them has a sense of direction in their own life. The data suggest that the question may belong in the standard clinical interview.

The post Older adults with the highest sense of purpose in life had a 46 percent lower mortality risk over four years compared to those with the lowest scores — according to a 2022 study by Harvard’s Eric Kim and colleagues — making purpose roughly 1.8 times as protective against death as not smoking, meaning what you wake up wanting to do may turn out to matter for how long you live almost as much as anything else you can measure appeared first on Space Daily.

The popular framing of intense romantic obsession treats it as an emotion, something that happens within the heart, that should be cultivated when reciprocated and resisted when unwelcome. The framing is intuitive and is the foundation of almost all of Western literature on romantic love. It is also, on the strongest reading of approximately twenty-five years of peer-reviewed neuroscience, inaccurate.

The state of intense romantic obsession is not, on the available evidence, an emotion. It is closer to what neuroscientists call a drive state, a category of brain activity that includes hunger, thirst, and the desire for sleep. Drive states are not voluntary. They are not reasoned. They are not regulated by the cognitive systems that humans use to evaluate evidence and make considered decisions. They are biological imperatives that operate on subcortical brain circuits and produce behaviour that the person experiencing them often describes as happening to them rather than being chosen by them.

The brain activity of someone in the early stages of intense romantic obsession is, on the available imaging evidence, biochemically and neurally closer to addiction than to love.

The Fisher fMRI study

The foundational peer-reviewed study of the neuroscience of romantic obsession was published in 2005 by the anthropologist Helen Fisher and her colleagues Arthur Aron and Lucy Brown in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, with the methodological details set out in a companion paper by the same team in the Journal of Neurophysiology in 2005. The team recruited 17 participants aged 18 to 26 who described themselves as intensely in love, with the duration of their romantic state ranging from one to seventeen months. Each participant was placed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner and shown alternating photographs of the person they loved and photographs of a familiar but emotionally neutral acquaintance. The brain activity in response to each set of photographs was recorded and compared.

The activation specific to the beloved was concentrated in two brain regions. The first was the right ventral tegmental area, a small structure in the midbrain that produces and releases dopamine. The second was the right caudate nucleus, a subcortical structure involved in reward processing, goal pursuit, and the formation of habits. Both regions are part of the brain’s mesolimbic dopamine reward system, the same neural network that is activated by cocaine, by gambling wins, by sugar consumption, and by the anticipation of receiving any other strong reward.

The Fisher team noted that the activation pattern in romantic love was not identical to addiction but was substantially overlapping. The brain regions involved were the same. The neurotransmitter system involved was the same. The behavioural patterns produced, including obsessive thinking about the source of the reward, craving for contact, emotional dependence on signs of reciprocation, and difficulty regulating attention to anything else, were the same. What was different was the source of the reward. The brain did not appear to distinguish, at the level of reward-system activation, between the chemical reward of cocaine and the social reward of a particular person.

The Fisher team also noted, in subsequent analyses of the same data, that the prefrontal cortex regions involved in critical judgment and skeptical evaluation showed reduced activation during exposure to images of the beloved. The brain was activating the reward system at full intensity while simultaneously quieting the evaluative system that would otherwise check the reward-driven impulses.

The Marazziti serotonin finding

The Fisher fMRI findings on dopamine were preceded by a different and equally striking peer-reviewed finding from a research team at the University of Pisa in Italy. In 1999, Donatella Marazziti and colleagues published a study in Psychological Medicine that examined a different neurotransmitter system. The team recruited 20 participants who had fallen in love within the previous six months, 20 patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 20 controls matched for age and sex. The team measured the platelet serotonin transporter density in each group, which is one of the most reliable available indicators of central serotonin system function.

The serotonin transporter levels in the people who had recently fallen in love were approximately 40 per cent lower than in the controls. The serotonin transporter levels in the patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder were also approximately 40 per cent lower than in the controls. The two groups, on the laboratory measurements used, were biochemically indistinguishable from each other.

The Marazziti finding, which won the Ig Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2000 and has since been broadly confirmed in subsequent peer-reviewed work, established that the obsessive-thinking patterns of intense romantic love are not metaphorically similar to obsessive-compulsive disorder. They are biochemically indistinguishable from it at the level of the serotonin transporter system. The popular language of “love sickness” and “love-crazed” turns out to have been more accurate, in the literal neurochemical sense, than the popular sentimental language of love.

The Marazziti team also followed their subjects over time and found that the lowered serotonin transporter levels returned to baseline within approximately 12 to 18 months from the initial measurement, regardless of whether the romantic relationship continued. The biochemical state that produced the obsessive thinking was time-limited.

The 18-month rule

The finding that intense romantic obsession is biologically self-limiting has been one of the most consistently replicated results in the neuroscience of love. The dopaminergic activation in the ventral tegmental area and caudate nucleus, on the longitudinal data, does not maintain its intensity indefinitely. It typically remains elevated for approximately 12 to 24 months and then declines toward baseline. The serotonin transporter suppression follows a similar curve. The cortisol elevation, which is the third major neurochemical signature of early-stage romantic love, also resolves within approximately the same period.

The 18-month rule, as it is sometimes called in the popular psychology literature, was first proposed by Dorothy Tennov in her 1979 book Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love. Tennov, based on more than a decade of interviews with approximately 500 subjects, observed that the most intense phase of romantic obsession, which she called limerence, typically resolved within 18 months to 3 years regardless of whether the relationship continued. Her observation was based on qualitative interview data and was not, at the time of publication, supported by neurochemical evidence.

The peer-reviewed neuroscience of the past twenty-five years has substantially confirmed Tennov’s observation. The dopaminergic, serotonergic, and cortisol changes that produce intense romantic obsession are not sustained by ongoing relationship presence or by ongoing relationship absence. They are sustained by the brain’s own time course, which is approximately one to three years. The relationship may continue past that point, in which case the intense obsessive state transitions into a different and more sustainable neurochemical pattern centred on oxytocin, vasopressin, and the attachment system. The relationship may end before that point, in which case the intense obsessive state continues for the remainder of its biological course and then resolves on its own.

The implication is that the experience the popular psychology literature has called limerence is not, primarily, a fact about the other person. It is a fact about the limerent person’s brain, which has entered a specific neurochemical state that will persist for a specific period of time before returning to baseline.

A short video we came across goes into the psychology behind limerence, breaking down exactly what it is and how its effects can be so powerful – click here to watch it. 

What this means for the involuntary feeling

The peer-reviewed neuroscience also explains a feature of intense romantic obsession that has been described consistently across cultures and centuries: that it does not feel chosen. The classical and Renaissance literature on love is full of metaphors of being struck by arrows, possessed by spirits, or driven mad by external forces. The popular contemporary language uses similar metaphors of falling, being captured, being unable to help oneself.

The metaphors are, on the available evidence, broadly accurate descriptions of what is happening at the neural level. The reward system is being activated involuntarily, by stimuli the person has not chosen and cannot turn off. The evaluative system that would normally regulate the impulses produced by reward activation is partially deactivated. The neurochemical state is being sustained by the brain’s own time course rather than by any decision the person is making.

The state of intense romantic obsession, in other words, is happening to the person rather than being performed by them. The person can choose what to do with it. They cannot choose to have it or not have it, and they cannot, on the available evidence, choose how long it lasts.

The honest limitations

Several caveats apply to the literature described above.

The Fisher 2005 fMRI study had a sample size of 17 participants, which is small by contemporary neuroscience standards. The findings have been broadly replicated in subsequent work, including the Fisher, Brown, Aron, Strong, and Mashek 2010 follow-up study in the Journal of Neurophysiology that examined the brains of people who had recently been rejected in love, but no individual study in this field has the kind of large sample size that would constitute definitive evidence. The conclusions are supported by a body of converging evidence rather than by any single decisive experiment.

The Marazziti 1999 finding on serotonin transporters was based on a platelet measurement, which is an indirect indicator of central serotonin function rather than a direct measurement of brain serotonin activity. The interpretation that the platelet finding reflects brain serotonin activity is plausible and is the standard interpretation in the literature, but it is not definitively established.

The concept of limerence, as developed by Dorothy Tennov, is not a recognised clinical diagnostic category in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or the International Classification of Diseases. The phenomena Tennov described are real and have been substantially confirmed by subsequent neuroscience, but mainstream clinical psychology has largely absorbed them into adjacent frameworks including early-stage romantic love, obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders, and anxious attachment patterns, rather than maintaining limerence as a distinct category.

The 18-month rule is a statistical central tendency rather than a deterministic timeline. Some individuals experience the intense obsessive phase for substantially shorter periods, and some experience it for substantially longer. The biological mechanisms involved are self-limiting in general but operate on different schedules in different people.

What it means

Several things follow from the neuroscience of intense romantic obsession that are worth saying clearly.

The first is that the experience that the popular psychology literature has called limerence is a real biological phenomenon with measurable neurochemical correlates. It is not a moral failure, a sign of weakness, or a psychological aberration. It is a specific state of the human brain that has been documented across cultures, across history, and across the available neuroscience evidence.

The second is that the involuntary quality of the experience is also real. The dopaminergic reward system is being activated subcortically, by mechanisms that operate beneath conscious decision-making. The serotonergic obsessive-thinking system is being suppressed by mechanisms that operate beneath conscious decision-making. The cortisol stress response is being elevated by mechanisms that operate beneath conscious decision-making. None of these systems can be turned off by willpower.

The third is that the experience is also, by the available evidence, time-limited. The neurochemical state that produces intense romantic obsession is biologically self-limiting in ways that are unique to the early stages of romantic love. It will end. The available timeline is approximately 12 to 18 months for most people, with substantial individual variation. What the person does during that period is partly under their control. What they feel during that period is largely not.

The fourth, on the strongest current reading of approximately twenty-five years of peer-reviewed evidence, is that the relationship between the popular sentimental language of romantic love and the underlying neuroscience is more honest than the relationship between the popular sentimental language and the underlying experience.

The brain in intense romantic obsession is, by the available evidence, doing what the classical literature has always said love does to people.

It is just doing it through dopamine, serotonin, and cortisol rather than through arrows.

The post The neuroscience of intense romantic obsession shows that the brain in early-stage romantic love activates the same dopamine reward circuits as cocaine and gambling, with serotonin transporter levels indistinguishable from those of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, in a finding that explains why the experience feels involuntary and typically resolves within approximately 18 months regardless of outcome appeared first on Space Daily.

Stand in front of a mirror and raise your right hand. The figure in the glass raises a hand on the same side of the room as yours, yet you read it instantly as the left hand of a person facing you. Hold a page of writing up to the surface and the letters run backwards. The everyday conclusion is that mirrors swap left and right. They do not. A flat mirror reverses one axis only, and it is not the one most people name.

The axis it reverses is the one running from you to the glass: front and back, the dimension of depth. Up stays up. The side of the room on your left stays on your left. What the mirror turns inside out is the direction you cannot easily see yourself moving along, and because we have no intuitive word for a depth flip, the mind reaches for the next best account and reports a left-right swap instead.

This is an old puzzle. It has a small literature of its own, including a much-cited exchange in the journal Philosophy over the deceptively simple question of why mirrors appear to reverse left and right but not up and down. The interesting part is not the optics, which are settled, but how reliably a correct visual system produces a confident wrong description.

What the glass actually does

Light bounces off a flat mirror at the same angle it arrives, so every point of the reflected scene sits directly behind the surface at the same height and the same horizontal position as its real counterpart. Your reflected head is at head height. Your reflected left shoulder lines up with your real left shoulder. The only coordinate that changes sign is depth. A point one metre in front of the glass is mapped to a point that reads as one metre behind it.

That single inversion is enough to account for everything that follows, including the reversed text. When you turn a page around to face the mirror, you rotate it about a vertical axis, and that rotation, performed by you, is what carries the left edge of the page to the right. The mirror then flips the page front to back. Lay the page flat and read it reflected from below and the letters do not reverse left to right at all; they turn upside down instead. The mirror behaved identically both times. You changed how you presented the object to it.

Why the brain reports a left-right swap

The reflection of a person is not a rotated person. It is a depth-inverted one. But a depth-inverted body looks almost exactly like a real body that has turned around to face you, and turning around is something bodies do constantly while a depth inversion is something they never do. So the visual system models the figure in the glass as another person who has pivoted to face you, and a person who pivots about a vertical axis really does exchange their left and right relative to yours.

The reversal, in other words, lives in the comparison, not in the mirror. We supply an imagined rotation to make sense of the image, then attribute the consequences of our own imagined rotation back to the glass.

The psychologist Richard Gregory, who spent much of his career on visual perception and wrote about this case at length in Mirrors in Mind, framed it as a problem of how we choose to map ourselves onto the reflection. The physicist Richard Feynman gave a similar account in conversation, and the writer Martin Gardner worked through the geometry in The Ambidextrous Universe. None of them disagreed about the physics. They disagreed, mildly, about the cleanest way to describe a confusion that physics does not cause.

The part that is genuinely strange

The depth flip does one thing that no rotation can undo. It changes handedness. Your reflection is not a copy of you turned around; it is an enantiomorph, the mirror-symmetric version, the way a left glove is the mirror version of a right one. A right hand reflects as something with the geometry of a left hand. This is the reversal that is real, and it is the one we tend not to notice, because we have spent our whole lives looking at it.

The face you know best is therefore a face no one else sees. Everyone around you meets the unreflected version, the one a camera records. Each is slightly unfamiliar to the other. A small 1977 study by Theodore Mita and colleagues, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reported that people tended to prefer the mirror image of their own face while their friends preferred the true image, and read the result as ordinary familiarity rather than vanity. It is one study from one sample, not a law about everyone, but it lines up with a plain fact about exposure: we are fluent in a version of our own face that is parity-flipped, and mildly thrown by the one the world actually sees.

What the illusion is not

It would be easy to turn this into a tidy lesson about how little we can trust perception. That overstates it. The visual system is not malfunctioning when it reports a left-right swap; it is applying a rule that is correct almost everywhere, because almost everything we compare ourselves to is a body that can turn around, and almost nothing is a depth inversion of us. The mirror is the rare case where a good rule gives a wrong answer, and it gives the same wrong answer to nearly everyone, which is part of why the confusion is so durable.

The error is also not really about mirrors. It is about the difference between what a thing does and the only language we have ready to describe it. A mirror reverses depth. We have no everyday account of a depth reversal, so we narrate it as the rotation we would have to perform to stand where the reflection stands, and then locate the change in the glass rather than in ourselves.

Raise the right hand again and watch the hand on your side of the room rise to meet it. Nothing has crossed over. The only thing that turned around was the explanation.

The post A mirror does not actually reverse left and right, even though your brain insists it does — it reverses front and back, creating a world where depth is flipped and the familiar face looking back is stranger than it feels appeared first on Space Daily.

The popular assumption about empathy, repeated across most of contemporary psychology, ethics, education, and public discourse, is that it is one of the unambiguously good human capacities. The empathic person feels what other people feel, understands their suffering, and is for that reason motivated to act in ways that reduce suffering rather than cause it. The assumption is intuitively appealing and, until recently, has been broadly shared across most of the scientific and clinical disciplines that study human behaviour.

The peer-reviewed evidence of the past two decades has substantially complicated the picture.

Empathy, on the strongest current reading of the social neuroscience and personality literature, is selective rather than universal. It is exhaustible rather than inexhaustible. It is exploitable rather than reliable. And in some cases, it can be one of the cognitive resources that the most dangerous personalities in the population use most effectively against the people they are harming.

The Heym 2020 study

In 2020, Nadja Heym and colleagues at Nottingham Trent University published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Personality and Individual Differences that used a statistical technique called latent profile analysis to identify distinct personality patterns within a sample of 991 adults. The participants completed standardised measures of empathy and of the three personality traits collectively known as the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The Dark Triad has been studied since the early 2000s as a cluster of socially aversive but non-clinical personality traits that show consistent associations with manipulation, exploitation, and reduced concern for others.

The standard assumption in the personality literature, before the Heym study, was that high empathy and high Dark Triad traits were essentially mutually exclusive. The empathic person was, by definition, not the narcissistic or Machiavellian person. The latent profile analysis tested this assumption.

It did not hold up.

The Heym team identified four distinct profiles in the sample. The Typicals (approximately 34 per cent) had moderate empathy and low Dark Triad traits. The Empaths (approximately 33 per cent) had high empathy and low Dark Triad traits. The Dark Triad group (approximately 13 per cent) had low empathy and high Dark Triad traits, matching the standard assumption in the literature. The fourth group, comprising approximately 19 per cent of the sample, had high empathy combined with high Dark Triad traits. The team called this group the Dark Empaths.

The Dark Empaths were not a hypothesised construct or a clinical category. They were a statistical pattern that emerged from the data, in approximately one in five participants. The proportion has since been broadly replicated in follow-up studies on samples from different countries.

What the dark empath profile actually shows

The follow-up analyses in the Heym study found that Dark Empaths shared some characteristics with each of the other two relevant groups but differed from both in specific ways. Like the standard Dark Triad group, the Dark Empaths showed elevated rates of indirect aggression, including gossip, rumour spreading, social exclusion, and the strategic damage of other people’s reputations. Like the standard Empaths, they showed higher emotional understanding of others and more accurate perception of other people’s mental states.

The combination produced what the team described as an “antagonistic core with empathy.” The Dark Empaths were not simply Dark Triad individuals with a softer surface presentation. The empathy was real, on the measurement instruments used. What distinguished the Dark Empaths from typical empaths was not the absence of empathy but the use to which empathy was put.

Empathy, on this reading, is a cognitive tool. It can be used to identify suffering in others and to reduce that suffering. It can also be used to identify suffering in others and to exploit it. The Heym team’s evidence suggests that approximately a fifth of the adult population is using it for the second purpose at least as often as the first, even while scoring as highly empathic on standard measures.

A short video explains more about the psychology behind dark empaths and why they are so hard to spot – click here to watch it.

Empathy is selective

The Dark Empath finding sits within a broader scientific reassessment of empathy that has been gathering peer-reviewed evidence for approximately two decades.

The most fundamental challenge to the popular framing comes from the social neuroscience research showing that empathy is selective rather than universal. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have consistently found that the same neural circuits that activate when a person observes pain in an in-group member fail to activate, or activate substantially less, when the same person observes pain in an out-group member. The effect has been measured across racial, national, religious, political, and team-affiliation categories. People do not, on the neural evidence, feel the same empathy for everyone. They feel substantially more empathy for people who are like them.

The selective activation of empathy is one of the most consistently replicated findings in social neuroscience. It also has direct implications for how empathy operates as a moral guide. A moral system based on empathy is, by the neural evidence, a system that systematically over-weights the suffering of the in-group and under-weights the suffering of the out-group. This is not a bug in the empathy system. It appears to be how the empathy system was designed by evolution to operate.

Empathy is exhaustible

The second major challenge to the popular framing comes from the empathy fatigue research. Tania Singer and Olga Klimecki of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences published a foundational paper in Current Biology in 2014 that examined the neural and behavioural consequences of sustained exposure to the suffering of others. The findings, which have since been replicated across multiple populations, indicate that prolonged empathic engagement with suffering activates the same neural pain pathways in the empathiser as in the person being empathised with. Over time, sustained empathic engagement produces measurable distress, anxiety, and depression in the empathiser.

The Singer and Klimecki paper made a further distinction that has become increasingly important in the empathy literature. Empathy, in the technical sense the team used, is the affective sharing of another person’s emotional state. Compassion is different. Compassion involves caring about the suffering of others without sharing it in the same direct affective sense. The two states activate different neural networks. Empathy activates the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex, the same regions that process physical pain. Compassion activates the ventral striatum, the medial orbitofrontal cortex, and the ventral tegmental area, the regions that process reward and motivated action.

The practical implication of the distinction is that compassion is sustainable in ways that empathy is not. The healthcare worker who maintains compassion for patients across a thirty-year career does not do so by feeling the patients’ pain on an ongoing basis. The patients’ pain, sustained at that intensity over decades, would damage the worker’s mental health. What the long-career healthcare worker has typically learned to do is to care for patients without sharing their distress, which is a different and more durable cognitive state.

The Bloom case

The most prominent recent popular articulation of these findings is the 2016 book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by the Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. The book drew on the social neuroscience and personality research described above to argue that empathy, properly defined, is a poor guide to moral judgment. Bloom argued that the same evidence supporting empathy’s selectivity and exhaustibility also supported a substantial reorientation of how psychology and ethics should treat empathy.

The Bloom argument is not that empathy is bad. The argument is that empathy is a specific cognitive capacity that operates in specific ways and has specific consequences, some of which are good and some of which are not. The popular framing in which empathy is the moral foundation of human goodness does not survive contact with the empirical evidence. What does survive contact with the evidence is a more limited claim: empathy is one of several cognitive resources that humans use in their social and moral lives, with both benefits and costs that depend on how it is deployed.

The Bloom case has been contested by other researchers, including the developmental psychologist Jamil Zaki of Stanford University, who argues that empathy can be trained and refined rather than abandoned. The disagreement is genuine and ongoing in the peer-reviewed literature. What is not in dispute is that the previous consensus, in which empathy was treated as unambiguously good and the only question was how to increase it, is no longer scientifically defensible on the available evidence.

The honest limitations

Several methodological caveats apply to the literature described above.

The Dark Empath construct, while peer-reviewed, is relatively new. The Heym 2020 study has been replicated in some follow-up work but not yet across the breadth of populations and cultures that would establish it as a robust personality category. The 19 per cent proportion identified in the original sample may differ in samples from other cultures, age groups, or socioeconomic contexts. The construct is genuinely supported by the available evidence but should be treated as a current scientific hypothesis rather than as an established personality category.

The neural research on empathy and compassion, while strong, is based largely on laboratory measures of brief emotional responses to specific stimuli. The relationship between laboratory neural patterns and the empathy people actually exercise in their daily lives is plausible but not perfectly direct. The Singer and Klimecki framework has been broadly accepted in social neuroscience but is not the only available model.

The in-group and out-group selectivity of empathy has been measured robustly but is also context-dependent. The same individual can show strong empathy for an out-group member in some circumstances and reduced empathy for the same person in others. The selectivity is not a fixed personality trait but a context-sensitive cognitive bias.

What it means

Several things follow from the differentiated picture of empathy that are worth saying clearly.

The first is that empathy is not, on the strongest current reading of the evidence, a reliable moral compass. It is a cognitive capacity that operates selectively, depletes with use, and can be deployed by people whose intentions are not aligned with the welfare of those they are empathising with. The popular framing in which empathy is the foundation of human goodness underestimates each of these complications.

The second is that the alternative the peer-reviewed literature points to is not the abandonment of empathy but the recognition that compassion is a distinct and more durable mental state. Compassion does not require feeling another person’s pain. It requires caring about another person’s welfare. The distinction has measurable neural correlates and measurable practical consequences for how the two capacities can be sustained across time.

The third is that the existence of the Dark Empath profile, which approximately a fifth of adults appear to display, has practical implications for how individuals navigate their personal and professional relationships. The standard heuristic that emotional understanding equals safety is not, on the available evidence, reliable. Someone can read another person’s emotional state with substantial accuracy and use that reading to manipulate rather than to help. The popular framing that the most dangerous personalities are emotionally cold is, on the Heym evidence, incomplete. Some of them are emotionally warm and using that warmth strategically.

The fourth, on the strongest current reading of fifty years of research that has now substantially shifted in its conclusions, is that empathy is real, important, and useful, but it is not what it has been popularly assumed to be. It is one cognitive tool among several, with specific properties that determine how it operates and what it can and cannot do.

What it cannot do, by the available peer-reviewed evidence, is reliably tell us who is trustworthy and who is not.

The post Researchers identified a personality profile that combines high empathy with high levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, in a finding that has complicated the standard scientific picture of empathy as an unambiguously prosocial human trait appeared first on Space Daily.

If you had to summarise Seneca’s most uncomfortable observation in a single sentence, it would be this: most of what you are spending your life trying to acquire is not actually going to satisfy you when you get it. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the Roman Stoic philosopher who served as tutor and later adviser to the Emperor Nero, wrote 124 surviving letters to a younger Roman official named Lucilius across the final years of his life — letters that have remained in continuous circulation for nearly 2,000 years and that contain some of the more concentrated observations of human psychology produced in the ancient world. Among the recurring themes in these letters is the curious gap between what people pursue and what actually makes them content. Seneca’s specific claim was that the pursuit of more — more wealth, more possessions, more recognition, more of essentially anything one could accumulate — does not converge on satisfaction. As the supply increases, the demand increases with it, and the gap between the two never closes.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s reference on Seneca, his writings repeatedly addressed this question across multiple letters and essays. “It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor,” he wrote in his second letter to Lucilius. “Contented poverty,” he added, quoting his philosophical opponent Epicurus approvingly, “is an honourable estate.” In another letter, again quoting Epicurus: “Whoever does not regard what he has as most ample wealth, is unhappy, though he be master of the whole world.” Contentment, in Seneca’s account, is not a function of how much one has but of how little one needs. People who have learned to need less can be content with very little. People who have not can fail to be content with essentially anything.

The empirical convergence

For most of the period between Seneca’s death and the late twentieth century, his observations existed as philosophical claims — defensible by argument, supported by example, but unverifiable by anything resembling modern empirical methodology. This changed in 1971, when the psychologists Philip Brickman and Donald Campbell introduced into the social-science literature the concept of the “hedonic treadmill” — a model in which positive events produce short-term elevations in subjective well-being that fade over time as people adjust their expectations upward to match their new circumstances. The model predicted that lottery winners, despite their substantial good fortune, should not end up much happier than they were before winning, because their reference point would shift upward and their new wealth would come to feel normal rather than exceptional.

Per the Wikipedia reference on the hedonic treadmill and its empirical foundations, Brickman and his colleagues Dan Coates and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman tested this prediction directly in a now-famous 1978 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The research team compared 22 major lottery winners with 22 demographically matched controls and 29 individuals who had been paralysed in accidents. The results were striking. Lottery winners were not significantly happier than controls. They reported finding less pleasure in ordinary daily activities than non-winners did, suggesting that the peak experience of winning had contaminated their capacity for mundane satisfaction. The paralysed accident victims, while clearly less happy than controls, were closer to controls than would have been predicted by the magnitude of their loss. The basic Stoic claim — that the relationship between external circumstances and inner contentment is much weaker than ordinary intuition suggests — was, in its broad outlines, empirically confirmed.

Why the mechanism works

The mechanism Brickman and Campbell identified, which Seneca had described in different language, is that humans adjust their internal reference point as their external circumstances improve. The first car you own provides substantial improvement over having no car. By the time you have reached the tenth car in a lifetime of progressively improving vehicles, each new one barely registers, even though every one of them would have seemed luxurious to the person you were before you owned any. The same pattern applies to houses, salaries, food, clothing, professional recognition, and essentially every other category of acquirable good.

The economist Richard Easterlin documented the same pattern at the level of whole societies in 1974, in what has come to be called the Easterlin Paradox. Within any given country at any given moment, richer people report being happier than poorer ones. But as an entire country grows richer over decades — as per-capita income doubles, then triples, then quadruples — average happiness barely moves. The collective acquisition of more does not produce collective contentment. The individual aspiration level rises in parallel with collective wealth, and the gap between aspiration and achievement remains essentially constant.

The hypocrisy charge

The honest account of Seneca’s argument requires noting an awkward complication. Seneca himself was extraordinarily wealthy. He served as a senior adviser to Emperor Nero and accumulated, over the course of his career, a personal fortune estimated by Roman historians at approximately 300 million sesterces — making him one of the richer private citizens in the Roman Empire. He owned multiple villas, substantial estates, and significant financial holdings, including loans to provincial elites that some historians believe may have helped trigger the Boudican revolt in Britain. The contrast between his philosophical writings on the worthlessness of wealth and his actual accumulation of substantial personal fortune has been the subject of debate since his own lifetime, when the Roman senator Publius Suillius Rufus publicly attacked him on this point in 58 CE.

Seneca’s response, articulated in his essay On the Happy Life, was that the wise person does not need wealth but is also not required to refuse it when it comes — that what matters is one’s relationship to one’s possessions, not the bare quantity of them. The defence is contested. Some readers find it self-serving. Others find it consistent with the broader Stoic framework, which emphasised the cultivation of an inner attitude rather than the renunciation of external goods. The biographical inconvenience does not, in any case, invalidate the underlying psychological claim. The clinical observation that the pursuit of more does not produce satisfaction can be empirically true even if the person making the observation happens to be wealthy. The Brickman and Easterlin data confirm Seneca’s claim regardless of how the philosopher himself lived.

The post The Stoic philosopher Seneca observed that what makes a person genuinely happy is not how much they have, but how little they need to be content — and the small jolt of his observation, two thousand years later, is that most modern definitions of the good life are still organized around acquiring more of exactly the things he warned would never quite settle the longing they were meant to satisfy appeared first on Space Daily.

For people who carry two copies of the APOE4 gene, the message from clinical medicine over the past three decades has been blunt: your risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease is dramatically elevated, the elevation is genetic, and there is not much you can do about it. About 2 percent of the human population falls into this category. They have inherited one copy of the APOE4 variant from each parent, which combine to produce a 12-fold higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease compared with people who carry no APOE4 copies. The dogma, until recently, was that this risk was essentially built in. Lifestyle changes might shift the odds at the margins. Nothing was thought to substantially overcome the genetic loading. In August 2025, a research team led by investigators at Mass General Brigham, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and the Broad Institute published a paper in Nature Medicine suggesting that the dogma was wrong — or at least incomplete — and that a specific dietary pattern can substantially modulate even the highest-risk genetic profile.

According to the Mass General Brigham press release accompanying the study, the research team analysed data from approximately 5,700 participants in two long-running US cohorts — the Nurses’ Health Study (4,215 women, followed from 1989 to 2023) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1,490 men, followed from 1993 to 2023). Combined, the data covered more than three decades of dietary records, genetic information, blood metabolomic profiles, and tracking of dementia outcomes across the participants’ lives. The study population was large enough, and the follow-up long enough, to provide statistically meaningful comparisons across genetic-risk subgroups — including the small but critical APOE4 homozygous subgroup, which most previous dietary studies had been too small to analyse on its own.

What the data showed

The headline finding was specific and striking. Per CNN Health’s coverage of the study, participants who most closely followed a Mediterranean dietary pattern — high in vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, legumes, fish, and olive oil; low in red meat, processed meat, and alcohol — showed reduced dementia risk across all genetic-risk categories. The protective effect was modest in people with no APOE4 copies. It was somewhat larger in people with one APOE4 copy. And it was substantially largest in people with two APOE4 copies, in whom close Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with at least a 35 percent reduction in dementia risk compared with APOE4 homozygotes who did not follow the dietary pattern. The protective effect, in other words, scaled with the genetic risk it was working against — the diet helped most in the people who needed it most.

Yuxi Liu, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, summarised the finding for CNN: “We followed over 5,700 people for 34 years and found those who followed a baseline Mediterranean diet with little alcohol, red and processed meat but full of vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, legumes, fish and olive oil all reduced the risk of dementia. But the benefit was highest for people with the APOE4 gene, especially those with two copies of APOE4.” Richard Isaacson, an Alzheimer’s specialist not involved in the research, framed the implications more directly: “Hopefully this will change the current dogma that having two copies of the APOE4 is a ‘fait accompli’ for developing Alzheimer’s. Genes do not have to be your destiny.”

The metabolomic mechanism

What distinguishes the 2025 study from earlier dietary research on Alzheimer’s is that the team also measured the participants’ blood metabolomes — the full set of small molecules circulating in their plasma — and tracked how the metabolite profiles varied by genotype and by diet. As documented in the original paper by Yuxi Liu and colleagues in Nature Medicine, the integrated analysis identified 57 specific metabolites whose associations with dementia risk varied by APOE4 genotype or by other Alzheimer’s-related genetic variants. Cholesteryl esters and sphingomyelins, for example, were most strongly associated with increased dementia risk specifically in APOE4 homozygotes. Inverse associations with glycerides — meaning higher glyceride levels were associated with lower dementia risk — were also specific to the APOE4 homozygous genotype.

The Mediterranean diet, in the data, was unusually effective at modulating exactly the metabolites that mattered most in APOE4 homozygotes. The diet pushed cholesteryl ester and sphingomyelin levels downward (reducing dementia-associated metabolites) while supporting glyceride profiles associated with protection. The mechanism is not yet fully characterised, but the integrated metabolomic data provide what the authors call “biological plausibility” for the observed dietary effect — meaning the diet appears to be working through measurable biochemical pathways rather than through some unspecified general health benefit. The combination of long-term outcome data and detailed metabolomic profiling makes the 2025 finding substantially more mechanistically grounded than earlier dietary observational studies that established correlation without identifying the underlying biochemistry.

Why the APOE4 finding matters

The clinical significance of the APOE4 result is hard to overstate. Alzheimer’s disease has a substantial genetic component — heritability has been estimated at up to 80 percent — and APOE is by some distance the strongest single genetic risk factor for the common sporadic form of the disease. The 12-fold elevated risk that comes with carrying two APOE4 copies is among the largest known gene-disease effect sizes in medicine. For decades, the consensus framing was that this genetic load was essentially fixed. Patients who learned through genetic testing that they were APOE4 homozygotes typically received the news as a sentence rather than a probability — something to brace against rather than something to act on.

The 2025 finding does not, by itself, eliminate the elevated risk. A 35 percent reduction in dementia risk among APOE4 homozygotes following a Mediterranean diet still leaves these individuals at substantially elevated risk compared with the general population. What the finding does establish is that the risk is modifiable — that a daily food pattern, sustained over decades, can meaningfully shift the trajectory in a population that previous research had largely written off. As reported in Harvard Health Publishing’s coverage of the study, the practical recommendation for APOE4 carriers is not radically different from what cardiologists and neurologists have been telling everyone for decades — eat more vegetables, more fish, more olive oil, less red meat, less processed food — but the new evidence suggests that for the APOE4 homozygous subgroup specifically, the recommendation may carry substantially more weight than it does for the general population.

Limitations and what comes next

The Liu et al. 2025 paper is an observational study rather than a randomised controlled trial, and the authors acknowledged several limitations that warrant honest framing. The cohort consisted of well-educated individuals of European ancestry, which means the generalisability to other populations — different genetic backgrounds, different food cultures, different socioeconomic contexts — is not yet established. The dietary adherence was self-reported through periodic food-frequency questionnaires rather than objectively measured. The participants who closely followed a Mediterranean diet may have differed from non-followers in unmeasured ways that could partly account for the dementia difference. The 2025 finding is not, on its own, proof that Mediterranean diet directly causes reduced dementia risk in APOE4 homozygotes; it is strong observational evidence consistent with that conclusion.

What the paper adds to the existing literature is the genetic-stratified analysis and the metabolomic mechanism, both of which provide convergent support for the broader claim. Earlier work — the 2023 brain-autopsy study showing 40 percent lower odds of Alzheimer’s pathology in Mediterranean and MIND diet adherents, the FINGER multi-domain lifestyle trial in Finland, the long line of MIND diet research at Rush University — had built the case that diet matters for dementia risk in general populations. The 2025 paper extends the case specifically to APOE4 homozygotes, who had been the most pessimistically counselled subgroup and now appear to be the subgroup with the most to gain from dietary intervention. Whether this translates into changed clinical recommendations, changed genetic-counselling practice, and changed daily behaviour in the 2 percent of the population carrying two APOE4 copies will be the central question for the next several years of Alzheimer’s prevention research. The biological case for the diet has now been made. The cultural case for actually following it is, as always, harder.

The post A Mediterranean diet rich in vegetables, fish, and olive oil reduces dementia risk even in people carrying two copies of the APOE4 gene variant — which raises Alzheimer’s risk 12-fold — according to a 2025 Harvard study in Nature Medicine, in the first finding that a daily food pattern can partially overcome a genetic predisposition long thought to be inescapable appeared first on Space Daily.

The marshmallow test is one of the most repeated stories in popular psychology. A small child is left alone with a treat and told that waiting will earn a second one. The children who held out, the familiar version goes, grew into teenagers and adults who scored higher, coped better, and generally did well, as if a single act of willpower at four had set the course of a life.

A 2018 study tested that promise against a much larger and more varied group of children, and the promise mostly did not hold. Concentrating on children whose mothers had not completed college, the researchers found that an extra minute of waiting at age four predicted only about a tenth of a standard deviation more achievement at age fifteen. That link was roughly half the size reported in the original work, and it shrank by about two-thirds once the researchers accounted for the child’s family background, early cognitive ability, and home environment.

What the replication actually did

The original results came from a study by Shoda, Mischel, and Peake in 1990, which reported strong correlations between a preschooler’s ability to delay gratification and both achievement and behaviour in adolescence. The sample was small and highly selective, drawn from children in the Stanford University community.

The 2018 team, led by Tyler Watts with Greg Duncan and Haonan Quan, ran what they called a conceptual replication. Rather than re-stage the exact experiment, they drew on the long-running NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, which had measured children’s delay of gratification at 54 months and then followed them for years. Their analysis sample included 918 children, and the subgroup they focused on, children whose mothers had not finished college, numbered 552, about ten times the size of the original 1990 study.

That difference in scale matters. A larger and more economically mixed sample makes it possible to ask whether an apparent effect of willpower is really an effect of the circumstances that shape willpower in the first place.

The choice to focus on children of less-educated mothers was deliberate, and it cuts against the suspicion that the researchers were stacking the deck. The full study sample skewed toward advantaged families. The subgroup of children whose mothers had not completed college was, by the authors’ account, more comparable with a nationally representative sample of American children. In other words, the group where the marshmallow effect looked weakest was also the group that looked most like the country as a whole.

Why the story travelled so well

Part of what made the marshmallow test so sticky is how clean it looks. A child, a treat, a timer, and a single number: seconds waited. From that one number flowed a tidy moral that fit decades of advice about character and success, the idea that the capacity to wait is a stable trait, visible early, that quietly shapes the rest of a life.

A finding that simple is easy to repeat and hard to qualify. The original correlations were real, but they came from a small and unusual group of children, and a strong correlation in a narrow sample can look very different once a wider, more varied population is measured. That is the gap the 2018 study set out to probe, and it is why the size and makeup of the new sample do so much of the work.

The link did not vanish, but it thinned

It would overstate the findings to say the marshmallow test was debunked outright. Among children of less-educated mothers, waiting longer at age four was still associated with somewhat better achievement at fifteen. The point is how much of that association survived scrutiny.

Before controls, the correlation was already only half the size of the original studies’ headline numbers. After the researchers adjusted for family background, early cognitive skills, and the home environment, roughly two-thirds of even that smaller link disappeared. What remained was a faint association rather than the strong, life-shaping signal of the popular telling.

The team also noticed that most of the predictive value sat at the very start of the waiting period. Most of the variation in adolescent achievement came from whether a child could wait at least 20 seconds, not from the heroic minutes of resistance that make the test memorable. A child who could hold out briefly looked much like a child who held out for the full delay.

The part the famous version leaves out

The behavioural promise fared worst of all. The original story implied that early self-control predicted not just test scores but a calmer, better-adjusted adolescence. In the replication, associations between delay time and measures of behaviour at age fifteen were much smaller and rarely reached statistical significance.

In other words, the strand of the marshmallow legend most often repeated by parents, that a patient four-year-old becomes a well-behaved teenager, is the strand the larger study supported least.

What this does and does not prove

This is a single conceptual replication, and it should be read as one. Because it used a different sample and a different delay-of-gratification measure than the 1990 study, it is not a perfect like-for-like rerun, and the authors are careful to frame it as a replication and extension rather than a verdict. A follow-up analysis by other researchers later argued that the two studies’ results, read carefully, are less far apart than the headlines suggested.

The findings are also correlational. The study can show that early delay of gratification predicts later outcomes more weakly once background is accounted for; it cannot prove that teaching a child to wait would, or would not, change that child’s future. Self-control may still matter. What the data undercut is the specific, tidy claim that a few minutes of waiting at four reveals a trait that determines how the next decade goes.

And the controls themselves carry the real message. The reason the link thinned so much is that delay of gratification is bound up with the resources around a child: a parent’s education, the cognitive skills already in place by age four, the stability of the home. A test that looks like it measures character may be measuring circumstance.

What is left to sit with

The marshmallow test endures because it offers a clean moral: wait, and you will be rewarded. The larger study does not erase that idea so much as complicate it. A child’s patience at four still says something, but much of what it says is about the world that child was already living in.

That is a less quotable finding, and a harder one to put on a poster. It asks whether we have been admiring willpower when we were looking, much of the time, at advantage.

The post The marshmallow test, redone with ten times as many children, found that a four-year-old’s willpower mostly stopped predicting teenage success once family background was taken into account appeared first on Space Daily.

The oldest city in the world that humans have continuously lived in is not Rome, not Athens, not Damascus, not Cairo. It is a Palestinian town of approximately 25,000 people in the Jordan Valley, sitting 250 metres below sea level in the dry rift between the West Bank highlands and the eastern desert, watered for the last several thousand millennia by a single freshwater spring that emerges from the rocks at the base of the cliffs. The modern town is built around that spring. So was the previous town. So was the one before that, and the one before that. The archaeological mound at Tell es-Sultan, just north of the modern city centre, contains the layered remains of more than 20 successive settlements built one on top of another over the course of approximately 11,000 years of continuous human habitation — making Jericho, by most reasonable accounts, the oldest city on Earth in which people have lived without significant interruption since the end of the last Ice Age.

According to the World History Encyclopedia’s reference on early Jericho, drawing on the archaeological record established by Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations, the site began as a seasonal camping ground for Natufian hunter-gatherers around 10,000 BCE, during the closing centuries of the Younger Dryas — the final cold snap of the Pleistocene Ice Age, a period of approximately 1,200 years during which the world’s climate temporarily reverted to glacial conditions and permanent settlement anywhere in the Levant was essentially impossible. The Natufians camped at Jericho specifically because of the Ein as-Sultan spring, which provided reliable water in an otherwise arid environment. When the Younger Dryas ended around 9600 BCE and the climate warmed into what geologists call the Holocene — the current interglacial period in which human civilisation has subsequently developed — the Natufians at Jericho stopped leaving. By approximately 9400 BCE, the seasonal camp had grown into a permanent settlement of more than 70 circular mud-and-straw dwellings. The town has, in some form, been there ever since.

What Tell es-Sultan actually contains

The mound at Tell es-Sultan is approximately 40,000 square metres at its base and rises about 21 metres above the surrounding plain — the accumulated debris of thousands of years of mud-brick houses being built, falling down, and being rebuilt on top of their predecessors. Modern excavation has revealed a continuous sequence of habitation layers stretching from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period (10,000-8,800 BCE) through the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (8,800-7,000 BCE), the Pottery Neolithic (7,000-5,200 BCE), the Chalcolithic (5,200-3,300 BCE), the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the Roman and Byzantine eras, the Islamic conquest, the Crusader period, the Ottoman centuries, and into the modern era. The same spring has watered every one of these settlements. The mound is, in stratigraphic terms, an unusually rich record of long-term human occupation — there was a brief settlement hiatus of several centuries between the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B periods around 7000 BCE, but the site has otherwise been continuously inhabited across the full 11,000-year span.

Among the most striking architectural features Kenyon’s team uncovered during the 1952-1958 excavations is the Tower of Jericho, a stone structure approximately 8.5 metres tall containing an internal staircase of 22 steps, built around 8,000 BCE. The tower is one of the oldest known monumental structures in the world. It predates the construction of the Egyptian pyramids by more than 5,000 years. It predates Stonehenge by approximately 5,000 years. It was built by a population of perhaps a few hundred people, using only stone tools, with no metal implements available — copper smelting in the Levant would not begin for another 3,000 years. Adjacent to the tower, Kenyon found a stone wall 3.6 metres high and 1.8 metres thick at the base, surrounding the entire Neolithic settlement. Whether the wall was defensive, ceremonial, or designed to protect the settlement from flash floods from the surrounding hills remains contested. What is not contested is that it represents some of the earliest large-scale collaborative construction work in human history.

The contested status of “oldest”

The claim that Jericho is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world is widely repeated but not universally accepted. Several other ancient settlements have plausible competing claims, depending on how “continuously” and “city” are defined. Damascus, Syria, has been continuously inhabited since approximately 9,000 BCE according to some archaeological estimates, though the dating is less secure than Jericho’s. Byblos, Lebanon, has continuous habitation evidence going back roughly 8,800 BCE. Aleppo, Plovdiv in Bulgaria, Argos in Greece, and several Anatolian sites have all been proposed at various times. The technical difficulty is that the strict definition of “continuously inhabited” requires essentially unbroken settlement, and most of these sites have either documented periods of partial abandonment, gaps in their archaeological records, or contested dating of their earliest layers. Jericho’s claim is the strongest because the Tell es-Sultan mound contains a particularly well-documented occupation sequence — successive settlements built directly on top of each other, with only the brief PPNA-to-PPNB hiatus interrupting the continuity. Per the Jerusalem Post’s coverage of Jericho’s archaeological record, the site has yielded approximately 70 prehistoric houses and more than 20 successive settlements, providing what is generally considered the best-documented long-term occupation sequence of any site in the world.

In September 2023, UNESCO formally recognised the archaeological complex at Tell es-Sultan as a World Heritage Site under the designation “Ancient Jericho/Tell es-Sultan,” with Palestine as the State Party of nomination. As reported by NBC News’s coverage of the designation, the recognition was controversial — Israel objected to the listing on political grounds related to the West Bank’s status under international law — but the underlying archaeological case for Tell es-Sultan as one of the most important early Neolithic sites in the world was uncontested. The UNESCO listing acknowledges Jericho as one of the oldest continually inhabited cities on Earth and as the location of some of the earliest fortified settlements ever constructed by human beings.

What Jericho’s existence predates

The most striking way to grasp the antiquity of Jericho is by reference to the things that did not yet exist when its first permanent residents built their first stone houses. Writing would not be invented for approximately 5,700 more years — cuneiform script would emerge in Sumer around 3,200 BCE. The wheel would not be invented for another 5,500 years, also in Mesopotamia, around 3,500 BCE. Metallurgy would not develop in the Levant for another 4,500 years; copper smelting reached Jericho only around 5,000-4,500 BCE. The Egyptian pyramids would not be built for another 6,400 years. The Athenian Acropolis would not exist for approximately 7,500 years. The Roman Empire would not be founded for approximately 8,200 years.

Agriculture itself was just beginning at the time of Jericho’s founding. The Natufian culture that established Tell es-Sultan was among the first human groups anywhere in the world to harvest wild grains, develop sickle technology, and begin the long transition from hunting and gathering to settled farming. The full domestication of wheat and barley would come over the following thousand years, and Jericho was one of the central sites where this transition was worked out. The city’s founders were not farmers in the modern sense — they were hunter-gatherers in the process of becoming farmers, who chose a permanent location next to a reliable spring and stayed there long enough to invent agriculture as they went. They did not know that what they were doing would matter to anyone afterward. They were trying to feed themselves and stay warm at the end of the last Ice Age, and they happened to choose a spot of ground that has continued to feed people, in essentially uninterrupted succession, for the next 11,000 years.

The post The oldest city in the world that humans have continuously lived in is not Athens, Rome, or Cairo — it is Jericho, in the West Bank, where archaeologists have found evidence of settlement going back roughly 11,000 years, meaning people have been living in the same place since the end of the last Ice Age, before writing, before metalworking, and at the dawn of agriculture itself appeared first on Space Daily.

Most people who are quietly miserable do not know it. That, in essence, is what a Danish philosopher named Søren Kierkegaard tried to tell the readers of nineteenth-century Copenhagen in 1849, and what the empirical psychology of regret has been confirming, in laboratory studies and museum surveys, for the past three decades. When most people use the word “despair,” they mean acute unhappiness — the kind of low mood that follows a loss, a failure, or a difficult life event. Despair in this ordinary sense is something a person is aware of. They can name it, describe it, and (with luck) move through it. Kierkegaard, writing under the pseudonym Anti-Climacus, used the word in a substantially different way. The despair he described was not an emotion. It was a structural condition of the self, present in the great majority of human beings, generally unnoticed by the people who carried it, and most acute precisely in those who did not know they had it. Kierkegaard’s book on the subject, The Sickness Unto Death, is one of the founding texts of existentialist philosophy.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Kierkegaard, the framework rests on a specific definition of what the self is. For Kierkegaard, the self is not a thing or a substance. It is “a relation that relates itself to itself” — a dynamic process by which a human being takes up the various contradictory features of being human (finite and infinite, possible and necessary, free and determined) and synthesises them into a coherent personality. The self is not given at birth; it is something a person has to become. And despair, in Kierkegaard’s account, is the misrelation that occurs when this becoming fails — when the synthesis goes wrong, when the person fails to take on the self they were capable of being.

The three forms of despair

Kierkegaard identified three primary configurations the failure can take. The first and most common is the despair of ignorance — being in despair without knowing it. A person in this state has not yet noticed any gap between the life they are living and the life they were capable of living. Their attention is consumed by the routine surfaces of daily existence: work, possessions, social position, the consumption of entertainment. The deeper question of what kind of person they are, in any meaningful sense, has never been seriously posed. Kierkegaard considered this unconscious form to be the dominant pattern in modern society — most people, in his view, were in despair without realising it, because the structures of their lives had insulated them from ever asking the question.

The second form is the despair of weakness — knowing what self one is meant to be and not being willing to be it. The person in this state has had some glimpse of their own possibilities and has, for whatever combination of fear, comfort, social pressure, or fatigue, declined to pursue them. The third form is the despair of defiance — willing to be a self other than the one one is, refusing the actual configuration of one’s life in favour of an imaginary or constructed alternative. The defiant form, Kierkegaard thought, was the most acute but also the rarest. As one frequently-cited line from the book puts it: “The greatest hazard of all, losing the self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss — an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc. — is sure to be noticed.”

What modern psychology has found

Kierkegaard was writing in 1849, in a theological framework, with no empirical methodology beyond his own observation of the people around him in nineteenth-century Copenhagen. His specific claims about despair as a sickness of the spirit cannot be tested in the same way an empirical hypothesis can be tested. What can be tested is whether the basic phenomenon he described — that the failures most haunting to people across a life are the failures to become the self one was capable of being — shows up in modern psychological data on regret. The answer is that it does. Per a 2023 replication in Royal Society Open Science of the foundational research by Thomas Gilovich and Victoria Medvec at Cornell University, the empirical psychology of regret converges on a striking temporal pattern: in the short term, people’s most acute regrets tend to be about things they did and wish they had not done. In the long term, the pattern reverses. The regrets that haunt people across years and decades, and that dominate when people look back on their lives as a whole, are overwhelmingly about things they did not do — chances not taken, paths not pursued, selves not allowed to emerge.

Gilovich and Medvec’s original 1994 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found this pattern across multiple population groups, including a sample of nursing-home residents reflecting on their entire lives. The 2023 replication, conducted at a Chicago museum of psychological science with a large public sample, reproduced the temporal interaction even though the specific magnitudes differed. The pattern is now considered one of the more robust findings in the empirical literature on regret. Its philosophical implication aligns closely with Kierkegaard’s framework, even though the researchers involved generally do not cite him.

Why the despair is so quiet

The most disconcerting feature of Kierkegaard’s account is his insistence that this despair is, in its most common form, undetectable to the person carrying it. Unlike acute sadness, which announces itself, the unconscious form of despair tends to be hidden by the very busyness of life that produces it. A person fully occupied with work, family obligations, consumption of news and entertainment, social media, the small daily tasks of contemporary existence, is unlikely to encounter the question of whether they are actually becoming the self they were meant to be. The question requires solitude, reflection, and a degree of confrontation with one’s own choices that ordinary life does not generally provide. As reported in D. Anthony Storm’s commentary on The Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard described despair as a “misrelation in the relation of a synthesis that relates itself to itself” — a sickness that, unlike most diseases, the patient is largely responsible for and from which the patient cannot escape simply by avoiding awareness of it. The avoidance, in Kierkegaard’s framework, is itself part of the despair.

What the framework does not promise

Intellectual honesty requires noting what Kierkegaard’s account does not establish. It is not a recipe for happiness. It does not specify what self any given person was meant to become, or how to identify that self, or how to pursue it once identified. Kierkegaard’s own answer to the question of how despair is overcome was specifically Christian — through a particular relation to God that he called faith — and many modern readers find that the theological framing limits the framework’s applicability. The diagnostic side of his work, however, has had broad influence well beyond the specifically Christian context, including on the existentialist philosophers of the twentieth century, on the founders of existential psychotherapy, on Erik Erikson’s developmental concept of “integrity versus despair” in late life, and on the broader twentieth-century literature on authenticity and self-realisation. What the framework provides is a vocabulary for naming a condition that often goes unnamed — the slow recognition, late in a life, that the person one has been is not quite the person one started out hoping to be. Kierkegaard called this the breaking through of despair into consciousness, and he thought it was, paradoxically, a kind of progress. The unconscious form, in his account, was worse than the conscious form, because it left no opening for change.

The post Søren Kierkegaard suggested that the deepest form of despair is not unhappiness but the failure to become the self you were quietly meant to be — a despair so subtle that most people who carry it never notice they are carrying it — and the difficulty of late-life regret is the slow recognition that the person you have been is not quite the person you started out hoping to be appeared first on Space Daily.

Imagine drilling through ice for 23 years to reach a lake nobody had ever seen, in the coldest place on Earth, in a research station that holds the world record for the lowest temperature ever recorded — and then, on the day you finally break through, having the lake itself shoot up the borehole to meet you. On the afternoon of 5 February 2012, at Russia’s Vostok Station on the East Antarctic ice sheet, that is approximately what happened. The drill bit, after 23 years of intermittent operation in the most punishing field conditions on the planet, finally penetrated the last few centimetres of ice and entered the surface of Lake Vostok at a depth of 3,769 metres — about 12,366 feet, or roughly 2.4 miles. The lake water beneath, compressed by the weight of nearly four kilometres of overlying ice, was under enormous hydrostatic pressure. The moment the drill broke through, the lake water surged upward into the borehole. It rose approximately 30 to 40 metres before encountering ice cold enough to freeze it solid. The plug of frozen lake water then sealed the borehole from below, in a kind of self-cleaning closure that the Russian team had specifically anticipated and designed the drill operation to produce.

As per Science magazine’s coverage of the breakthrough, citing Valery Lukin, leader of the Russian expedition, the team had been working toward this specific moment since 1989, when the Soviet (and later Russian) Antarctic programme first began deep ice-core drilling at the Vostok site. The original purpose of the drilling was paleoclimate research — recovering ice cores that contained trapped air bubbles from earlier periods of Earth’s history, which could be analysed to reconstruct atmospheric composition going back hundreds of thousands of years. The existence of Lake Vostok beneath the Vostok Station was not known when drilling began. The lake’s existence was inferred indirectly in the 1960s from aerial photography showing an unusually flat patch of ice surface, and was confirmed in 1993 through satellite radar surveys that could penetrate the ice and detect the liquid water beneath. By that point, the deep drilling at Vostok was already well underway, and the project’s scientific purpose shifted to include the eventual penetration of the lake itself.

The lake beneath

Lake Vostok is approximately 250 kilometres long and 50 kilometres wide — about 150 miles by 30 miles — which makes it slightly smaller than Lake Ontario but comparable in scale, and the largest of approximately 400 subglacial lakes that have now been mapped beneath the Antarctic ice sheet. The water in the lake is liquid, despite the surrounding air temperatures at the surface of the ice sheet routinely dropping below minus 80 degrees Celsius. Several factors keep it from freezing. The weight of the overlying ice raises the lake’s pressure to approximately 350 atmospheres, which lowers the freezing point of water by several degrees. Geothermal heat from the Earth’s interior keeps the lake bottom warmer than the ice above. And the ice itself functions as an insulator, isolating the lake’s interior from the extreme cold of the polar atmosphere.

The duration of the lake’s isolation is one of the more remarkable features of the discovery. According to TIME magazine’s coverage of the breakthrough, Lake Vostok has been sealed beneath continuous Antarctic ice for somewhere between 15 and 34 million years, with most estimates clustering toward the upper end of that range. Whatever microbial communities, dissolved organic chemistry, and physical conditions are present in the lake today have evolved or accumulated essentially independently of the surface biosphere across that entire period. The lake’s interior is one of the few isolated environments on Earth that has been disconnected from the surface for geological rather than merely historical timescales. The biological implications are substantial: if there is life in Lake Vostok, it is life that has been evolving along its own trajectory for tens of millions of years, in conditions of total darkness, high pressure, near-freezing temperatures, and limited nutrient input.

Why the breakthrough mattered

The scientific interest in Lake Vostok extends well beyond its identity as a curiosity of Antarctic geology. The lake is widely considered to be the best available terrestrial analogue for the kind of subsurface liquid water environments that may exist on other worlds in the solar system. Jupiter’s moon Europa is believed to contain a global ocean of liquid water beneath an outer ice crust, kept liquid by tidal heating from Jupiter’s gravitational pull. Saturn’s moon Enceladus has a similar configuration, with confirmed plumes of liquid water erupting through its icy surface. According to NBC News’s coverage of the Russian breakthrough, including comment from NASA’s then-chief-scientist Waleed Abdalati, the techniques developed to access and analyse Lake Vostok have direct relevance to the eventual missions that will attempt to sample the subsurface oceans of these other worlds. The technical, biological, and contamination-management challenges of drilling into a 15-million-year-isolated lake on Earth are, in important ways, simpler versions of the challenges that will face any spacecraft attempting to sample Europa or Enceladus.

The contamination management was, in fact, the most delicate aspect of the 2012 breakthrough. The Russian team had to use approximately 60 tonnes of kerosene and Freon in the borehole during the drilling, both as anti-freeze and as a means of equalising pressure with the surrounding ice. The drilling chemicals are not the kind of substances anyone wants introduced into a pristine 15-million-year-isolated lake. The pressure-driven upward surge of lake water at the moment of breakthrough was specifically engineered into the drill design to address this problem: when the lake water rose and froze in the borehole, it formed a plug that prevented the drilling chemicals from flowing downward into the lake. The team then withdrew from Vostok Station shortly after the breakthrough, leaving the plug of frozen lake water in place until the following Antarctic summer.

The samples and what they showed

According to Columbia Climate School’s coverage of the 2012 breakthrough and its scientific aftermath, the Russian team returned to Vostok in December 2012 to retrieve the frozen plug of lake water that had filled the borehole. The plug was extracted, transported to Russia, and analysed in laboratories in St. Petersburg over the following months. Initial analyses reported DNA traces from more than 3,500 distinct organisms — primarily bacteria and fungi, including some unfamiliar species — but the interpretation of these findings was contested in subsequent papers, partly because of the inherent difficulty of distinguishing genuine Lake Vostok organisms from contamination introduced by the drilling chemicals, the borehole environment, and the sample handling. The methodological challenges of confirming an isolated ancient ecosystem from a single contaminated sample are substantial, and the field is still working to resolve them.

Subsequent drilling campaigns at Vostok and at other Antarctic subglacial lakes have continued to refine the techniques. A 2013 American expedition to Lake Whillans, a smaller subglacial lake under a different part of the Antarctic ice sheet, used a “hot-water” drilling technique that introduced less chemical contamination and recovered cleaner samples; the Lake Whillans samples confirmed the presence of active microbial communities in subglacial environments, providing independent support for the basic biological finding from Vostok. A British expedition to Lake Ellsworth in late 2012 was forced to abandon its drilling effort after technical problems, but planning for future Antarctic subglacial lake missions continues. The 400 known subglacial lakes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet now represent one of the more active frontiers in terrestrial exploration — a sealed-off network of liquid water environments, accessible only through engineering feats comparable in difficulty to the early space missions, sitting beneath the most physically remote landmass on Earth. Lake Vostok was the first to be reached, in February 2012, by a Russian drill that had been working its way downward through the ice for 23 years before the lake came up the borehole to meet it.

The post Nearly four kilometres beneath the Antarctic ice, Russian scientists in 2012 drilled into a hidden lake the size of Lake Ontario that had been sealed away for at least 15 million years — and when the drill broke through, the pressure was so great that the ancient lake water shot up the borehole and froze in place, freezing itself before anyone could touch it. appeared first on Space Daily.

Hold a single-use plastic spoon in your hand — the kind that comes with takeout food and gets thrown away after one meal. It weighs about seven grams. According to a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature Medicine on 3 February 2025, that approximate mass of plastic is roughly what the average adult human brain now contains, distributed throughout the frontal cortex in the form of microscopic shards, fragments, and nanoparticles of polyethylene and a handful of other common consumer polymers. The researchers who produced the finding were so surprised by their own data that, in the words of one of the study’s senior authors, Andrew West of Duke University, they “didn’t believe it” until multiple complementary measurement techniques on multiple samples kept producing the same result. The result was that human brains, in 2024, contained approximately 50 percent more microplastic by mass than human brains preserved from autopsies in 2016 — and that the absolute concentrations in brain tissue were roughly seven to thirty times higher than in liver or kidney samples from the same bodies.

According to the original paper by Alexander J. Nihart and colleagues at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, published in Nature Medicine, the research team analysed 52 human brain samples from frontal-cortex tissue collected at autopsy in two periods: early 2016 and early 2024. They also examined liver and kidney specimens from the same donors. The detection methods combined three complementary techniques: pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to identify and quantify polymer types, attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to confirm the chemical structure of detected particles, and electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy to visually verify the morphology of the particles in tissue. The combination of three independent measurement approaches was specifically designed to address the central methodological challenge of the field: the difficulty of distinguishing genuine plastic particles in biological tissue from procedural contamination introduced during sample handling.

What the numbers actually were

The mass concentrations the team measured were higher than anyone in the field had expected. The 2016 brain samples averaged approximately 3,345 micrograms of plastic per gram of brain tissue. The 2024 samples averaged approximately 4,917 micrograms per gram. Multiplied by the average mass of an adult human brain (approximately 1,400 grams), the 2024 figure corresponds to a total brain plastic burden of approximately 7 grams — roughly the mass of a plastic spoon, in the comparison that has become the study’s most-cited shorthand. According to National Geographic’s coverage of the study, the 50 percent increase between 2016 and 2024 mirrors the steep increase in global plastic production over the same period, which Matthew Campen, the UNM toxicologist who led the project, described as “frighteningly correlated” with the rate of plastic accumulation in the broader environment.

The composition of the brain plastic was unexpected as well. The dominant polymer detected was polyethylene — the material used in single-use plastic bags, food packaging, water bottle caps, and a wide range of consumer products. Polyethylene accounted for a substantially higher proportion of the brain microplastics than it did of the microplastics in liver or kidney samples from the same donors. Other detected polymers included polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, and styrene-butadiene rubber, with the overall mix consistent with the kinds of plastics most commonly fragmented into the environmental microplastic pool. Electron microscopy of the brain particles showed that they were predominantly nanoscale shard-like fragments, generally less than 200 nanometres long and less than 40 nanometres wide — small enough to cross biological barriers that were never evolutionarily designed to stop them.

How the plastic gets in

The blood-brain barrier is one of the more remarkable evolutionary structures in vertebrate biology. It consists of a tightly-sealed layer of endothelial cells lining the blood vessels of the brain, supplemented by specialised glial cells called astrocytes, that together prevent most molecules circulating in the bloodstream from reaching the brain’s neural tissue. The barrier has been evolving in its current form for approximately 500 million years, since early vertebrates, and its primary function is to protect the brain’s delicate neural environment from toxins, pathogens, ion fluctuations, and other potentially harmful substances that the rest of the body’s tissues regularly encounter. The barrier is impermeable to most molecules larger than about 500 daltons (a small organic molecule), and it is reinforced by active transport systems that pump out unwanted substances that do manage to cross.

According to the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center’s institutional summary of the research, the Nihart team had expected to find some microplastic accumulation in brain tissue, on the basis of earlier animal studies and the 2024 finding of microplastics in human olfactory bulb tissue. What they had not expected was the magnitude: brain concentrations 7 to 30 times higher than concentrations in liver and kidney from the same individuals. The most plausible explanation involves the size of the particles. The detected fragments were predominantly nanoscale rather than microscale, and the smallest nanoparticles — below about 100 nanometres — appear capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier through several mechanisms, including transcytosis through endothelial cells, uptake by circulating immune cells that then migrate into the brain, and direct entry through the olfactory pathway via the nasal cavity. The barrier evolved to handle organic molecules, ions, and biological pathogens. It did not evolve to handle nanoscale fragments of synthetic polymers that did not exist on Earth before Leo Baekeland synthesised the first true plastic, Bakelite, in 1907.

The methodological challenge

The findings have not been accepted without scrutiny. According to a methodological critique published in Nature Medicine in November 2025 in response to the original Nihart paper, several independent research groups have raised concerns about the reliability of the reported concentrations. The principal objections involve the difficulty of preventing procedural contamination during sample preparation — laboratory air, plastic containers, glassware, and reagents are themselves potential sources of the very polymers being measured — and questions about whether the pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method, while sensitive, fully distinguishes between plastic-derived organic molecules and structurally similar organic compounds produced by tissue itself.

The Nihart team has responded to these concerns by emphasising the convergence of their three independent detection methods, the use of contamination controls, and the consistency of the findings across multiple samples and analytical approaches. The broader field is in the process of working out methodological standards for measuring microplastics in human tissue — the techniques are new, the targets are tiny, and the contamination challenges are real. What is not in dispute is that microplastics have been detected, by multiple independent research groups using multiple methods, in human blood, placenta, lungs, kidneys, livers, and now brains. The exact concentrations remain a matter of active scientific debate. The presence of the particles, in some quantity, in essentially every human tissue that has been examined for them, is now established.

What we do not yet know

The 2025 paper documented the presence of microplastics in human brains. It did not establish what those particles do once they are there. The health effects of microplastic accumulation in brain tissue, if any, are presently unknown. The Nihart team did observe that brains from individuals who had been diagnosed with dementia contained 3 to 5 times more plastic than brains from non-demented donors of similar age — a striking correlation, but one that cannot, on the current evidence, distinguish between several competing causal interpretations. The plastic could be contributing to dementia pathology. The dementia pathology could be allowing more plastic to accumulate (because of blood-brain barrier breakdown that occurs in some forms of dementia). Or some third factor — diet, environmental exposure, lifestyle — could be driving both. The cross-sectional design of the study cannot resolve which of these explanations is correct.

What the study has established, with reasonable confidence and pending replication by independent groups, is that human exposure to environmental microplastics has reached a level at which measurable quantities of those plastics are now present in the most metabolically protected tissue in the human body. The barrier that evolution spent half a billion years constructing to keep foreign matter out of the brain is, in the year 2026, demonstrably permeable to nanoparticles of a class of materials that have existed on the planet for fewer than 120 years. Whether this is medically significant, environmentally tractable, or biologically reversible are questions that the next decade of research will be working to answer. The exposure itself is no longer in doubt.

The post The average human brain now contains roughly a plastic spoon’s worth of microplastic particles — about 50 percent more than brains collected in 2016 — according to a February 2025 study in Nature Medicine, meaning the blood-brain barrier, which evolution spent half a billion years building to keep foreign substances out, has quietly turned out to be transparent to a material humans first manufactured in 1907 appeared first on Space Daily.

The cheapest piece of equipment that has been shown to substantially reduce a person’s lifetime risk of developing dementia is not a medication, a meditation practice, or an exercise routine. It is a small plastic device, typically beige or transparent, that fits behind the ear and amplifies sound. According to a study published in JAMA Neurology on 18 August 2025, adults with hearing loss who began using hearing aids before the age of 70 went on to develop dementia at approximately 61 percent the rate of comparable adults with untreated hearing loss. The effect held up across more than two decades of follow-up. It survived statistical adjustment for age, sex, vascular risk factors, and educational background. It is one of the largest single-intervention effects on dementia risk that has been documented in any peer-reviewed study to date — and it sits, in 2026, almost entirely unused by the population it would most benefit.

The study, led by Lily Francis of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio with senior author Sudha Seshadri, drew on data from the Framingham Heart Study — the longest-running cardiovascular and public-health cohort in American medical research, originally launched in 1948 in the Massachusetts town of Framingham. According to Hearing Tracker’s coverage of the study, citing the Francis et al. paper directly, the research team analysed records from 2,953 participants in the Framingham original and offspring cohorts who were aged 60 or older at baseline and free of dementia at the start of observation. The participants had received pure-tone audiometric hearing assessments between 1977-1979 (original cohort) and 1995-1998 (offspring cohort), and had been tracked for up to 20 years afterward for incident dementia. By the end of follow-up, 583 of the participants — approximately 20 percent — had developed dementia.

What the data showed

The headline finding was specific to a particular age group. According to Medscape’s detailed report on the statistical findings, participants who were younger than 70 at the time of their hearing assessment and who had hearing loss showed a sharp split based on whether they used hearing aids. Those with untreated hearing loss developed dementia at the highest rate. Those who used hearing aids had a 61 percent lower risk of dementia (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.89, P=0.03). Participants under 70 with no hearing loss at all sat in between, with a 29 percent lower risk than the untreated-hearing-loss group. The under-70 finding was robust across multiple statistical models including adjustments for cardiovascular risk and education.

For participants 70 or older at the time of their hearing assessment, the protective association disappeared. Hearing aid use in this older subgroup was not significantly associated with reduced dementia risk in any of the models the team examined. Seshadri, the senior author, offered a clinical interpretation of the age dependence: “The impact of correcting risk factors is, for most risk factors, greatest in midlife between ages 50-75.” Older adults whose hearing has been untreated for many years may have already accumulated brain changes — atrophy, reduced cognitive reserve, persistent social disengagement — that hearing aids alone cannot reverse. The implication is that hearing aids work as a dementia-prevention tool, but their effect appears to depend substantially on timing.

Why hearing might matter for the brain

The mechanistic explanations for why treated hearing loss reduces dementia risk are not yet fully established, but the broader literature converges on several plausible pathways. The first is cognitive load. When the auditory system delivers degraded signals to the brain, the brain has to expend more processing resources to extract meaning — leaving less cognitive capacity available for memory formation, attention, and other higher-order functions. Over years and decades, this chronic cognitive overhead may contribute to faster cognitive aging. Hearing aids reduce the load by restoring clearer auditory input, freeing up cognitive resources.

The second pathway is social. Hearing loss makes conversation effortful and often embarrassing, and many people with untreated hearing loss progressively withdraw from social activities — phone calls, group meals, religious services, family gatherings, professional meetings — to avoid the difficulty. The resulting social isolation is itself an established dementia risk factor, identified by the 2024 Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention as one of 14 modifiable risk factors. Hearing aids that restore conversational ability tend to restore social engagement as well. The third pathway is structural: untreated hearing loss has been associated in imaging studies with faster atrophy of brain regions involved in auditory and language processing, and the structural changes may have downstream effects on broader cognitive function.

What stands in the way

Given the size of the documented effect and the modest cost of the intervention, the central public-health puzzle is why so few of the people who could benefit from hearing aids actually use them. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders’ official statistics on hearing health, approximately 28.8 million US adults could benefit from using hearing aids, but among adults aged 70 and older with hearing loss who could benefit, fewer than 30 percent have ever used them. Among younger adults with hearing loss — exactly the group the 2025 Framingham analysis identifies as gaining the most from hearing aids — the adoption rate is substantially lower still. Across the entire population of Americans with hearing loss of any severity, between 60 and 90 percent never use hearing aids at all.

The reasons for this gap are well-documented in the public-health literature. According to a 2025 PMC review of insurance status and hearing aid utilization in older US adults, the leading barrier is cost. Prescription hearing aids in the United States typically cost between $2,000 and $5,000 per pair. Original Medicare does not cover hearing aids or fitting examinations at all. Some Medicare Advantage plans offer partial hearing benefits, but coverage varies enormously by plan. Medicaid hearing aid coverage varies state by state and is often limited. The 2022 FDA regulation permitting over-the-counter hearing aids for mild-to-moderate hearing loss has reduced costs substantially for some users — OTC aids run $200 to $1,500 per pair — but uptake of OTC devices has been slower than initially projected. Other barriers include the perceived stigma of using a visible aging-related device, the gradualness of hearing loss (which often goes unrecognised for years), and the typical delay of 7 to 10 years between when a person first becomes aware of hearing difficulty and when they finally pursue treatment.

What the study does not prove

The Francis et al. 2025 paper is an observational study rather than a randomised trial, and the authors acknowledged several limitations. Hearing aid use was self-reported and measured as a binary variable, with no information on how consistently or how many hours per day each participant actually wore their device. The study could not distinguish whether the protective effect was driven specifically by the age of intervention or by the underlying severity of hearing loss. People who chose to buy and wear hearing aids may have differed from non-users in unmeasured ways — better access to healthcare, higher health literacy, more proactive engagement with their own well-being — that could partly explain the dementia difference.

The 2025 finding does not, on its own, prove that hearing aids cause reduced dementia risk. What it adds to the existing literature, including the 2023 ACHIEVE randomised controlled trial which showed slowed cognitive decline in high-risk adults using hearing aids, is the specific temporal claim that the protective effect is concentrated in adults who begin treatment before age 70. The combined weight of the available evidence is now substantial enough that the 2024 Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention identified hearing loss as the single most prevalent modifiable risk factor for dementia globally, accounting for approximately 8 percent of all dementia cases. The most effective response to this risk factor — early-life hearing aid use — is one of the cheapest, lowest-risk, and most widely available interventions in the modern medical toolkit. The reason it remains so widely unused is not that the evidence is unclear. The evidence is increasingly clear. The reason is that the device itself sits at the intersection of cost, insurance coverage, social stigma, and the slow human pace at which gradual hearing loss becomes a noticed problem. The Framingham 2025 finding makes the case for closing that gap as urgently as any single piece of public-health data published in the past decade.

The post People who began using hearing aids before age 70 reduced their long-term risk of developing dementia by approximately 61 percent — according to a 2025 Framingham Heart Study — yet roughly 60 to 90 percent of adults with hearing loss never wear them, meaning one of the most powerful documented dementia-prevention tools is sitting unused in millions of medicine cabinets. appeared first on Space Daily.

The deepest place on Earth, it turns out, is littered. The dive began at the surface of the western Pacific Ocean, approximately 200 miles southwest of Guam, on the morning of 28 April 2019. Victor Vescovo, a 53-year-old retired Navy officer and Dallas-based private-equity investor, climbed into a two-person titanium pressure sphere mounted inside a 12-tonne submersible called Limiting Factor. He sealed himself in alone. The support crew on the surface ship released the submersible into the water. Vescovo began a vertical descent through the ocean — past the sunlit surface waters, past the dim twilight zone at 200 metres, past the cold blackness below 1,000 metres where natural light no longer reaches, and on downward through the deep ocean basins toward the bottom of the Mariana Trench. The descent took approximately four hours. By the time Vescovo’s submersible came to rest on the seabed, he was approximately 10,928 metres below the surface — almost seven miles down — in the deepest known point on the entire planet.

According to CNN Travel’s coverage of the dive, Vescovo’s depth of 10,928 metres exceeded the previous deepest manned descent — Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard’s 1960 trip in the bathyscaphe Trieste — by approximately 16 metres, or 52 feet. The film director James Cameron’s 2012 solo dive in the Deepsea Challenger had reached approximately 35,787 feet, slightly less deep than the 1960 record. Vescovo therefore became, at the moment his submersible touched bottom on 28 April 2019, the deepest-diving human in history, and the fourth person ever to have visited Challenger Deep, after Walsh and Piccard in 1960 and Cameron in 2012. He would, over the following two weeks, return to the bottom three more times, making him the most experienced visitor to the deepest place on Earth by a considerable margin.

What it takes to go there

The technical challenge of reaching Challenger Deep is substantial, and the engineering required to keep a human being alive at that depth is unlike any other application in modern engineering. The pressure at 10,928 metres is approximately 1,086 bar, or 16,000 pounds per square inch — roughly 1,071 times the atmospheric pressure at sea level. Several common metaphors are used to convey the magnitude of this pressure in human terms. One is the weight of approximately 50 fully loaded Boeing 747 jumbo jets stacked on top of one another. Another is the weight of the Empire State Building bearing down on an area the size of a single human foot. A third is simply that any ordinary unprotected object lowered to Challenger Deep will be crushed essentially instantaneously into a small dense pellet of whatever material it was made from.

The Limiting Factor was designed specifically to survive these conditions. The submersible’s pressure hull is a titanium sphere with walls 90 millimetres thick, manufactured by Triton Submarines in Florida and certified by classification societies for unlimited depth — meaning the design is engineered to tolerate the maximum pressure that exists anywhere on the Earth’s seafloor. The interior of the sphere is approximately 1.5 metres in diameter, just large enough for two people to sit upright in cramped positions. The submersible’s life support, viewports, communications, propulsion, and ballast systems all had to be designed to operate at the extreme conditions of the trench bottom. The total cost of the Limiting Factor and its supporting expedition, called the Five Deeps Expedition, was approximately $48 million — Vescovo’s own money, derived from his career in private equity.

What he found

The bottom of the Mariana Trench is not, despite popular imagination, a featureless plain. According to NBC News Mach’s coverage of the dive, Vescovo described the seafloor at Challenger Deep as “a flat, beige basin covered with a thick layer of silt,” but with occasional rocky outcrops, varied geological features, and a surprisingly active biological community. He observed shrimp-like amphipods with long legs and antennae moving across the silt, translucent “sea pigs” (a type of sea cucumber adapted to extreme depths), spoon worms, snailfish, and other deep-sea organisms. Four of the species the expedition collected during the multiple Challenger Deep dives turned out to be previously unknown to science. The biological collection alone, taxonomically speaking, justified the entire expedition.

The submersible’s external lights illuminated patches of the seafloor as Vescovo manoeuvred the Limiting Factor across the basin. He criss-crossed back and forth for approximately four hours, the longest single time any human being has ever spent at Challenger Deep, looking for unique geological features, biological specimens, and any evidence that some location nearby might be even deeper than the 1960 Trieste position. He also looked, as a secondary mission objective, for any signs of human contamination. In the popular imagination, the deepest point on Earth would presumably be the one place least likely to contain evidence of human activity. The 1960 Trieste dive, which had been brief and visually limited, had not reported any obvious human debris. Cameron’s 2012 dive had likewise focused on biological and geological observations and had not specifically catalogued plastic pollution.

The plastic on the seabed

Vescovo’s longer dive time and more powerful illumination produced different results. According to TIME magazine’s coverage of the discovery, Vescovo observed a plastic bag and several candy wrappers resting on the seafloor at the bottom of Challenger Deep. The objects were photographed by the submersible’s external cameras and later confirmed by his expedition team. The plastic objects had presumably arrived at the deepest point on Earth through some combination of overboard dumping from ships, river runoff carried by ocean currents, and the gradual sinking of plastic debris through the water column from the floating Pacific garbage patches that have accumulated over the past several decades. Vescovo’s reaction, conveyed in interviews shortly after the dive, was direct: “It was very disappointing to see obvious human contamination of the deepest point in the ocean. It’s not a big garbage collection pool, even though it’s treated as such.”

According to CBS News’s coverage of the Five Deeps Expedition findings, Vescovo also observed “angular metal or plastic objects, one with writing on it” on the seafloor — suggesting that the visible debris at the bottom of the trench includes more than just the bag and wrappers, and that the cumulative presence of human-made objects at Challenger Deep is more substantial than any single piece would suggest. The expedition team collected biological samples and confirmed in subsequent analysis that the amphipods Vescovo had observed during the dive contained microplastics in their digestive systems — meaning that the visible plastic on the seafloor was the structurally largest component of a far more pervasive contamination that extended into the bodies of the animals living there.

What the dive established

The Five Deeps Expedition continued through the rest of 2019, with Vescovo completing dives to the deepest point in each of the world’s five oceans. The Mariana Trench dive remains the deepest of the five. The mission’s biological collection contributed several dozen new species to the scientific literature. The detailed sonar maps the expedition produced of the deepest points in the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, Southern, and Arctic Oceans substantially improved the global bathymetric record of the planet’s deepest features. The Limiting Factor submersible has since been used for further deep-ocean research expeditions, including the first manned dives to the bottoms of several other ocean trenches that had not previously been visited by people.

What the dive established, beyond its various scientific contributions, was something simpler and harder to absorb. The deepest place on Earth, the most physically remote point on the planet’s surface, the location that took 59 years from the first manned descent in 1960 to be visited for a fourth time by the spring of 2019 — that place contains plastic. The 50 jumbo jets of pressure overhead, the seven miles of seawater above, the total darkness, the four-degree water, the thousand-fold isolation from the activities of the human surface world have not been enough to keep the bag and the candy wrappers from arriving on the seafloor. Vescovo’s 2019 dive was the first time anyone had stayed at the bottom long enough, and looked carefully enough, to confirm what was already true: that the planet’s deepest point, like every other point on the planet, now contains visible evidence of the species that has spent the past century industrially manufacturing single-use plastic and disposing of it in ways that allow it, eventually, to settle to the bottom of every body of water on Earth. The deepest place on the planet, as of April 2019, is no longer pristine. Whether it ever was is a more philosophical question. It is certainly not pristine now.

The post Seven miles beneath the Pacific Ocean, in the deepest place on Earth, American explorer Victor Vescovo descended in 2019 to a depth where the pressure equals 50 jumbo jets stacked overhead — and at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, where no light has ever reached, he found a plastic bag and several candy wrappers waiting on the seabed. appeared first on Space Daily.

Think for a moment about the person in your life whose presence costs you the most energy. Not someone who has genuinely wronged you in a clear, identifiable way, but someone whose small habits and ordinary behaviour produce, in you, a reaction that is consistently bigger than what those habits or that behaviour would seem to warrant. The colleague whose tone of voice puts you immediately on edge. The relative whose certainty about politics or food or anything else triggers in you an irritation you cannot fully explain to yourself. The friend of a friend you have decided, on insufficient evidence, that you do not particularly like. The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, working in the early decades of the twentieth century, paid sustained clinical attention to this kind of disproportionate dislike, and proposed that it has a specific psychological mechanism behind it. The mechanism, he argued, is that the parts of other people that bother us most acutely are very often the parts of ourselves that we have refused to recognise — repressed into a region of the psyche that he eventually came to call “the shadow.”

The shadow, in Jung’s mature formulation, is not the same as “the bad parts of you.” According to the Society of Analytical Psychology’s reference on the Jungian shadow, drawing directly on Volume 9 of Jung’s Collected Works, the shadow consists of “the hidden, repressed, for the most part inferior and guilt-laden personality” — but it also contains “good qualities, such as normal instincts, appropriate reactions, realistic insights, creative impulses.” Whatever the conscious self has refused to identify with, for whatever reason — whether out of shame, out of social training, out of fear, or simply out of inattention — becomes part of the shadow. The shadow, in Jung’s clinical experience, is then projected outward. The person carrying it tends to see, with unusual intensity, those very same qualities in other people, while not seeing them in themselves at all.

What Jung was actually claiming

The specific clinical mechanism Jung proposed was psychological projection — the unconscious attribution of one’s own disowned traits to someone else. Jung was emphatic that the process is automatic and largely outside conscious awareness. “Everyone carries a shadow,” he wrote in his 1938 essay “Psychology and Religion,” “and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.” The more vigorously a person represses an unwanted aspect of themselves, in Jung’s view, the more vividly they tend to see that same aspect in other people, and the more strongly they tend to react to it. The reaction, importantly, is not in proportion to anything the other person has actually done. It is in proportion to how much energy the perceiver is spending on keeping the same trait outside their own self-image.

The first clinical implication of this framework is that the people we find most difficult are, in a quiet sense, diagnostic. They are pointing — usually without any intention of doing so — at material in our own psychology that we have not yet acknowledged. A person who finds laziness intolerable in others, Jung suggested, is often someone who has not made peace with their own desire to rest. A person who reacts disproportionately to the arrogance of others has often suppressed their own ambition. A person who is harshly critical of vanity in their colleagues has often disavowed their own desire to be seen. The shadow does not invent these patterns; it inherits them from whatever the conscious self has refused to admit. The disproportionate reaction is the marker that something has been refused.

What modern empirical psychology has found

Jung was a clinician, not an experimentalist, and his framework was developed primarily through case work, dream analysis, and theoretical synthesis rather than through controlled studies. The empirical psychology literature has been mixed on whether his specific claims hold up under laboratory conditions. The general concept of projection — that people attribute their own traits to others — turns out to be well-documented, but in a form somewhat different from what Jung proposed. The form Jung described, where specifically repressed or disowned traits are projected outward, was disputed by mid-20th-century empirical psychologists, who could not consistently demonstrate the effect in laboratory studies.

This changed substantially in 1997. According to a 1997 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Leonard Newman, Kimberley Duff, and Roy Baumeister, defensive projection of the kind Jung described does occur, but through a specific mechanism: when people try to suppress thoughts about the possibility that they have undesirable personality traits, the suppression makes those trait concepts more cognitively accessible, and the accessible concepts then get used disproportionately when interpreting other people’s behaviour. In experimental terms, the Newman team showed that people who both avoided thinking about having threatening personality traits and denied possessing those traits also readily inferred those same traits from ambiguous behaviour by other people. The effect was robust across multiple studies and replicated in subsequent work. The Jungian clinical observation, after seven decades of contested empirical status, turned out to be partially correct, with a mechanism somewhat different from the one Jung had originally proposed but converging on the same basic phenomenon: what we cannot tolerate facing in ourselves, we are unusually quick to perceive in others.

What it means to “meet” the shadow

The clinical work that Jungian analysts have developed around the shadow concept over the past century has focused on a specific therapeutic move: taking back the projection. In practice, this means noticing the people and situations that produce a disproportionately strong reaction, asking what specific quality is triggering the reaction, and then asking honestly whether that same quality exists, in some form, in oneself. According to the International Association of Analytical Psychology’s institutional reference on shadow work, “the integration of the shadow, or the realization of the personal unconscious, marks the first stage in the analytic process” in the Jungian tradition. The IAAP framing notes that complete integration is impossible — the shadow contains material that extends beyond the individual into what Jung called the collective unconscious — but partial integration substantially changes the person’s experience of other people.

What changes, in this account, is the energy spent on rejecting other people for traits they may or may not actually possess. Once a quality is acknowledged as also present in oneself, the unconscious need to police it in others tends to subside. The colleague who used to be intolerable becomes, often, merely a colleague. The relative whose certainty was unbearable becomes someone whose certainty is one feature among many. The friend of a friend, met fresh, turns out to be more interesting than first impressions had suggested. The change is not in the other person. The change is in the perceiver’s relationship to a previously hidden part of themselves.

The limits of the claim

Honest framing requires noting what Jung’s shadow framework does not establish. It is not a comprehensive theory of why all difficult relationships are difficult. Some interpersonal conflict is straightforwardly about real disagreements over real things — values, resources, mistreatment, incompatible needs — and is not reducible to projection. Some dislikes are accurate appraisals of genuinely difficult people. The shadow framework applies most clearly to the specific subset of reactions that are disproportionate to their apparent cause, persistent across multiple instances, and surprisingly resistant to factual correction. Not every dislike is a projection. Some are simply dislikes.

The framework also makes no promise that meeting the shadow eliminates difficulty. Some relationships remain difficult even after substantial inner work, because the difficulty was never about projection in the first place. What the framework does seem to do, both in the clinical literature and in the experimental work that has followed Jung, is reduce the specific kind of disproportionate reaction that comes from disowning parts of oneself. The mechanism is not magical and the change is not total. But the pattern — that the people who bother us most are often pointing at material we have not yet been willing to claim — appears to be real, and the work of meeting it is, by every clinical and empirical account that has examined it, one of the more reliable ways to make the small irritations of ordinary human life take up somewhat less space inside a single person’s head.

The post Carl Jung observed that the things we cannot stand in other people — the small irritations that seem disproportionate, the people we find ourselves unable to forgive — are almost always reflections of the parts of ourselves we have not yet acknowledged, in a quiet psychological pattern he called the shadow, and the surprise is that doing the work of meeting it tends to soften nearly every difficult relationship a person carries appeared first on Space Daily.

There is a particular kind of flatness that comes from moving through the same loop of places, day after day. Home, the same desk, the same walk to the same shop, back home. Nothing is wrong, exactly. But the days start to feel laminated together, hard to tell apart in memory. You get to the weekend and struggle to recall what the middle of the week actually held, because it looked like everything around it.

There’s a finding from a few years ago that I keep turning over, because it lines up so closely with that low-grade flatness, and with its opposite.

I’m not a psychologist, and the study I’m about to describe is one observational study of a particular group of people, not a settled rule about how everyone’s mood works. It’s a clue, not a prescription. Keep that in mind as you read.

In 2020, a team published a paper in Nature Neuroscience that did something I find quietly clever. Rather than ask people to remember how varied their lives felt, they tracked it. They followed 122 people in New York City and Miami using the GPS in their phones, over three to four months, and every other day they sent a text asking people to rate how they felt, using words like happy, excited, strong, relaxed, and attentive.

What they found is the pattern above. On days people moved among more varied places, they tended to report more positive feeling. And the relationship ran both ways. As co-author Catherine Hartley put it, “if I feel better today, I’m likely to move around” and have more novel experiences the next day, and the reverse held as well. Feeling good nudged people out into the world, and getting out into the world nudged the feeling back up.

It’s worth being clear about what “varied places” actually means here. Reading this, it’s easy to picture travel, big novelty, the kind of trip you save up for. But that isn’t what the GPS was measuring. It was measuring the ordinary spread of a day. 

I notice this sort of pattern most clearly looking back on my first year living in Vietnam. Everything was new that year. The city, the noise, the food, the language, the version of myself I was becoming in the middle of it. That year felt enormous in retrospect, longer than most years since. I don’t want to flatten it into a happy postcard, because there was real loneliness in it too, visa stress, a lot of evenings alone. But the texture of that time was rich in a way that the laminated weeks are not, and the difference was variety. I was visiting new places and new experiences almost constantly, whether I wanted to or not.

That’s the dramatic end of the scale. The mundane end is the one I actually live now, and I arrived at it by accident. My weekday splits between home in the morning and two different coffee shops in the afternoon, with a walk between each block. I built that pattern to clear my head between tasks, not to manage my mood. The location variety is a byproduct. But it does rhyme with the study in a way I only noticed after reading it. My ordinary day already has a small amount of roaming baked into it, and the days I skip it, staying put from morning to night, are reliably the duller ones.

The study’s author Aaron Heller’s own reading of all this is broad. “New and varied experiences are broadly beneficial for the brain,” he told Inverse. That’s one researcher stating his interpretation confidently, and it’s worth holding it as his view rather than proven fact. But he also said something gentler that I think lands better. “Even if you may not tend towards exploring,” he noted, “there are probably benefits” to doing so anyway. The hedges are his, and they’re the right ones to keep.

The part that stays with me is the direction it can run. If feeling flat and staying put feed each other, the loop can run in the wrong direction just as easily as the right one. The worse a stretch feels, the less you go anywhere. The less you go anywhere, the more the days laminate, and the flatter the stretch feels. Nothing dramatic happens. The world just quietly shrinks to the size of the rooms you’re already in, and the shrinking is so gradual you don’t clock it as a cause.

Talking to a qualified counsellor or therapist is worth a great deal more than any study summary.

The post Researchers tracked 122 people for three months and found that on days they visited more varied places, they tended to report feeling a little more positive appeared first on Space Daily.